Scott Peters

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Takano for yielding. I appreciate his commitment to improving the lives of veterans, their families, and the communities. The Reserve Component Vocational Rehabilitation Parity Act, my bill before the House today, aims to continue investing in veterans, specifically those still fighting for our Nation. Our veterans have served our country, and it is our duty to make sure they can access the resources that they have earned. Many guardsmen and reservists have realized that they didn't qualify for all their benefits after the Department of Defense began using their new authority created to call up Reserve components for involuntary service. This new authority unintentionally excluded these reservists. Thankfully, Ranking Member Walz and Mr. Palazzo took the lead to fix several of these inconsistencies. We passed a few of these fixes in the Forever GI Bill last year. This week, we are also passing other bills to make sure benefits are properly extended. One unresolved issue, though, was access to vocational rehabilitation. This VA program provides access to education and critical job training that helps servicemembers and veterans develop their career plan after service. Vocational rehab helps veterans determine transferable skills that will lead to good jobs and what additional skills they need to fulfill their career goals. Upon separation, a veteran must use his or her vocational rehab benefits within 12 years. Any months or years spent deployed should not count against this time clock. Currently, two reservists serving side by side in Active Duty may not have access to the same vocational rehab benefits just because of the authority under which they have been mobilized. Additionally, reservists involuntarily called up may be leaving their family or a civilian job without notice, compared to a reservist who volunteered. In both cases, these guardsmen and reservists served honorably in missions to support combat zones. They have earned the same employment and education benefits as every other reservist throughout their service. My bill, the Reserve Component Vocational Rehabilitation Parity Act, ensures that reservists and guardsmen have access to the full 12 years of vocational rehab benefits by pausing the clock during their service. I am happy to have received the support of the National Guard Association of the United States and the Reserve Officers Association in this effort. I urge Congress to pass this bill so that all of our veterans can access the education benefits they earned. Mr. Speaker, I thank General Bergman, who joined me to introduce this bill, and seven of our committee colleagues who cosponsored the bill, as Mr. Takano said. I also thank Chairman Roe, a wonderful chairman; Ranking Member Walz; and the Veterans' Affairs Committee staff for their steadfast work to support our Nation's veterans. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for their strong support of the bill, and I urge its passage.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chair, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 346.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I want to take a moment to say a special thank you to Mr. Pallone and his committee staff for their tireless work to address this crisis. The opioid crisis has ravaged our Nation. It twice has been declared a national public health emergency under Federal law. More than 100 people will die from an overdose just today. That is why this bipartisan effort to address it is so important. There is certainly work to be done, but I am happy that legislation that I worked on with my colleague, Dr. Bucshon, is included in this bill, and it aims to stop addiction where it frequently begins: after surgery. Millions of Americans are prescribed opioids following routine surgeries because they are cheap and accessible, and nearly 70 percent of those pills go unused. Our bill reverses the perverse incentive that put so many cheap pills in people's hands in the first place. It allows innovators to receive extra compensation for nonaddictive opioid alternatives if they can show that their alternative therapies have substantial clinical benefit. In the short term, the policy reduces the incentive to simply use the cheapest postsurgical pain treatment, which is typically an opioid. In the long term, it will spur innovation by providing additional compensation for the future development of nonaddictive alternatives. That means as long as this crisis takes to solve, there will be an incentive to continue to develop nonopioid alternatives. Of course, access isn't enough. These treatments must also be affordable. We will continue to work with CMS and FDA to ensure that safer and more effective nonopioids are affordable for the people who need them most. We must find better ways to treat this problem where it starts. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Correa for his leadership in putting together this Special Order. I know this shocks us all, what is happening at the border, because in our country, family is an institution. It shapes every aspect of our lives. If you just listen to Ronald Reagan, who painted a wonderful picture of what family means in America, he said: ``The family has always been the cornerstone of American society. Our families nurture, preserve, and pass on to each succeeding generation the values we share and cherish, values that are the foundation of our freedoms.'' That is Ronald Reagan talking about the family as an American institution. Today, family, that concept, is being torn apart and challenged at our own borders. Screaming children are being ripped from their parents' arms. These parents are fleeing government violence, domestic violence, religious persecution. They follow generations of people who came to America seeking a better life. Remember that America was founded by people fleeing religious persecution in Europe. We know the story all too well about what is happening at the border in San Diego where, last week, Dana Sabraw, a Federal judge appointed by George W. Bush, refused to dismiss a lawsuit challenging family separation. The lawsuit involved a Congolese woman and her 7-year-old daughter who were separated at the San Ysidro border crossing after applying for asylum. As The New York Times described, the girl ``was taken away `screaming and crying, pleading with guards not to take her from her mother,''' and then she was sent to Chicago, thousands of miles away. They didn't see each other for 4 months. This is common practice. After children are taken from their parents, many parents don't have any idea where they went, who is taking care of them, or how to reach them. Now, this mother and her child were reunited, but only after a legal challenge and a DNA test. This mother was looking for the life all parents try to provide their children: one of security and comfort, one of hope, one of opportunity. We don't know the exact number of children who have been separated from their parents, but we do know that just one is unacceptable when their parents were just trying to give them a better life. It is also potentially unconstitutional, because I know people in this Chamber still care about that. In his opinion, Judge Sabraw said that family separation ``arbitrarily tears at the sacred bond between parent and child. Such conduct . . . is brutal, offensive, and fails to comport with traditional notions of fair play and decency.'' He also reiterated these same constitutional rights are guaranteed to the noncitizens who come to our borders and ask us for asylum. The American Psychological Association called on the Trump administration to stop this cruel practice, citing increased anxiety, depression, psychological distress, and developmental disruptions in children who are separated from their parents. But as parents, we don't need the American Psychological Association to tell us that. Imagine it is you and your children. Imagine how you would feel if you were trying to take care of your kids and had one torn away from you. We had one account of a woman nursing her baby. The baby girl was ripped from her arms while she was breast feeding at a detention center. How many children will have to suffer before we have to say, ``No more''? Thankfully, we can do something here. We will not admit every family who comes and asks for our protection. We understand they don't all met the criteria for asylum. But while they wait for a decision on their application, we can treat these families with respect and dignity that demonstrates American values to the rest of the world. Tearing families apart as an immigration deterrent is repulsive, and it is not us. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, Mr. Correa, for his leadership and for holding this conversation on this important topic. It shocks the conscience. I hear all the time from my constituents who are horrified by this. We need to stop this. We will continue to come back and speak up if we have to, but this needs to end. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Correa once again for holding this hour.

Mr. PETERS

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

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to division C of the Appropriations bill related to the Department of Veterans Affairs. In September 2017, the VA issued a plan to shift funding away from programs that helped homeless veterans. After national outcry, the proposal was tabled, but that attempt is the reason for my amendment. Its goal is simple: It prohibits taking funding from VA programs that provide services to homeless veterans, including the Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem program, a clinical rehabilitation and treatment program, the Supportive Services for Veteran Families Program, and HUD- VASH housing vouchers. Congress has made money available in a bipartisan way to reduce homelessness for veterans. It is unconscionable that the VA would use funds specifically intended for that purpose on another purpose. San Diego County has the third-largest veterans population nationwide, behind Los Angeles and Maricopa Counties. This is why, since being elected, I have worked with my colleagues to provide more funding and services to veterans who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless. I have furthered this work over the last year and a half as a member of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs. These vets took an oath to protect our country, and now America must keep its promise to take care of them. They should not be struggling, and they most certainly should not be living on the streets. San Diego has achieved some progress in getting vets off the streets and into housing in recent years. Other cities, like Salt Lake City, New Orleans, and Houston, have reached functional zero, which means that homelessness among veterans is rare, brief, and nonrecurring. But across the country, the problem is still far too prevalent. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment that will help protect valuable resources that our veterans desperately need, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to fund veterans homelessness programs and to make sure that Federal dollars committed to that purpose are used for that important need. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman for yielding. One thing I want to agree with Mr. Nadler on is his comments about the tragedy yesterday in Florida. I completely endorse those comments with respect to that tragic event. I do rise today in support of H.R. 620, the ADA Education and Reform Act. Today, as Members have heard, the ADA is being abused by a few bad actors who are serving their own personal interest, financial interest, not fighting for the disabled. They file lawsuits and immediately settle them for a few thousand dollars without actually requiring that anything be fixed. Nobody says this abuse is not happening. Nobody says this advances the cause of access. A small restaurant owner in downtown San Diego tells a typical story. It was sued by an attorney who had filed 50 ADA suits against restaurants in San Diego County in 1 year. The barriers claimed in that suit didn't exist. The tables were at ADA compliant height, the bathroom was accessible, there was access between tables, but the property owner's attorney told him it could cost him upwards of $50,000 to prove it in court, so they settled with the plaintiff for $2,500. The serial litigant got the quick payoff he wanted although there were no violations that had to be fixed, and if there were violations, it wouldn't have required that they be fixed. We hear stories all the time of lawsuits settled without any barriers being fixed. Now, some State governments have acted to curb this abuse. And do you know who has led the fight against the abuse of disability laws? California Democrats. In 2016, Governor Jerry Brown signed S. 269, authored by a Democratic State senator and passed by a majority Democratic legislature. It gives businesses 120 days to correct violations claimed by a plaintiff. It is a bipartisan solution that educates businessowners on compliance, redirects payouts to settle claims away from lawyers and toward actually improving access, and it protects against these cookie-cutter lawsuits filed by serial plaintiffs. Now, let me address some of the issues that have been raised today. We are trying to provide the same kind of correction at the Federal level. First, this bill doesn't turn anyone into a second-class citizen by requiring notice and an opportunity to cure. The concept of notice and cure is not new to private rights of action. In fact, it is very common. Under the Clean Water Act in which I practice, if a complainant has to notify violators of a violation, the violator has 60 days to fix the problem before he can file a private right of action. And in civil rights laws, too, as has been said, notice and opportunity to cure is common. Before you can file a lawsuit for a hostile workplace environment, for instance, you have to file a claim and give the employer the chance to fix it. And the same is true, quite ironically, for disability. If you want to file a notice on reasonable accommodation, you have to give the opportunity to fix it. Today, we are asking that businessowners be given the same chance to fix problems that we currently give employers. Second, the bill does not hold harmless public accommodations. Under H.R. 620, public accommodations are still responsible for ensuring access under threat of litigation. If a property owner fails timely and adequately to respond to a notice, she is subject to the same remedies that exist today. Third, a notice and cure period does not shift the burden of compliance from businesses to victims. Today, if a public accommodation is out of compliance with the ADA, a plaintiff--a real plaintiff who had a problem with it--would have to file a lawsuit to force compliance. Under H.R. 620, a plaintiff would be able to file a notice that starts the timeline to fix the problems that exist. That doesn't shift the burden. And finally, H.R. 620 does not weaken the rights of the disabled. On the contrary, it facilitates the removal of barriers to ensure better access for the disabled within a short period of time, discouraging the quick payoffs that do nothing for access. No one solution proposed by Congress is ever perfect. I have worked with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to find amendments and changes to the law to make the timeline for fixes tighter and to tighten the definitions of compliance. In fact, many of the defects that are noticed by Mr. Nadler, I believe, will be addressed by amendments today.

Mr. PETERS. Specifically, we will have a provision for plain language notice, which I think is an improvement: 120-day clarification instead of 180 days, and a better definition of what substantial progress means. I think we can continue to improve the bill, and I hope to work with my colleagues and the Senate to do that. But in the face of undisputed abuse of one of our Nation's civil rights laws for personal gain, I am certain that doing nothing is the worst response. Mr. Chairman, I urge support of this bill.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I also thank Mr. Griffith for introducing the Promoting Closed-Loop Pumped Storage Hydropower Act. He did valuable work to make this the bipartisan version we see today. More electricity from hydropower is key to meeting our clean energy goals, to reducing harmful emissions that pollute our air and water and contribute to climate change. Hydropower is one of the few carbon-free energy sources that provides a steady baseload of electricity. This bill will give closed-loop hydropower projects an expedited process for approval from FERC. It will consider interagency input through a new task force and provide appropriate protection for wildlife and endangered species while helping us grow emissions-free energy. These closed-loop projects often integrate other forms of renewable energy, like solar, to develop a power generation cycle that is clean, secure, and reliable. In San Diego, where large rivers and typical hydropower generation are less common, closed-loop pumped storage hydropower offers an innovative solution and can have other benefits to the region's energy and reservoir systems. In my district, the Lake Hodges Pumped Storage Project has provided clean energy since 2012, and a new project at the San Vicente Reservoir is being considered now. We must consider to have productive bipartisan conversations like these that produce the ultimate goal of streamlining the regulatory process so that hydropower projects can be approved more quickly while still meeting high environmental standards. I would also like to thank Energy and Commerce Committee leadership and staff for helping advance this bill to the floor, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, I understand that real tax reform is absolutely necessary. In 2013, the Harvard Business School published a report that identified the most important Federal priorities to promote American growth and competitiveness. Two of the eight priorities were tax related. First, to simplify the corporate Tax Code with lower statutory rates and fewer loopholes; and second, to reform the taxation of foreign profits so we don't disadvantage American businesses and workers. Many Democrats would work with the majority to achieve these progrowth tax reforms. That is how it worked so well in 1986 under President Reagan and Speaker O'Neill. But we should not, and we don't need to, balloon the Federal debt to achieve these goals. That is exactly why Republican proposals in the House and the Senate are so harmful for our country. We know that national debt itself is antigrowth. That is why the same Harvard study that advocated tax reform also prioritized a stable Federal budget. Public debt crowds out private investment. CBO estimates that every dollar in deficit crowds out 33 cents in private investment. Debt gives us less flexibility to deal with emergencies. Debt increases the risk of another financial crisis, because when investors lose confidence in the government's ability to pay back borrowed funds, interest rates can spike. As interest takes up more of the budget, less is available for other programs, including roads, bridges, scientific discovery, and our national defense. When Congress passed the Bush tax cuts, national debt was at a level equal to 32 percent of the U.S. economy. Today, it is 77 percent of GDP. These bills will put our national debt on track to be larger than our national economy. We can point fingers at each other about how we got here, but if we are trying to get out of the hole, first we need to stop digging. We will not grow our way out of this hole. According to the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, no estimate that accounts for the economic impact of higher debt has found that the bill would raise the growth rate by more than a quarter of the Republicans' declared 0.4 percent growth target. In a survey at the University of Chicago, known for its conservative economic theory, 37 of 38 economists agree that the GOP tax bills in Congress would cause U.S. debt to increase substantially faster than the economy. At the University of Pennsylvania Wharton School, which the President himself trumpets as his alma mater, teaming with smart people, their dynamic scoring model found that the House bill would lose between $1 trillion and $1.7 trillion over a decade in revenue after accounting for growth. What in the world has happened to the Grand Old Party and fiscal responsibility? How will we pay for infrastructure now? Will we really risk destabilizing the dollar, the world's economic currency? Will we ask China to lend us money so that we can defend ourselves from North Korea? I have heard my Republican colleagues say again and again how important it is to pay for spending, to get our fiscal house in order, to get our national debt under control. I asked one colleague why he had run for Congress in the first place, and he told me he was so concerned about loading his kids up with all this borrowing, that he had to do something. His eyes filled with tears as he talked about his children. Yet he and many like him voted in a rush to add at least $1.5 trillion to the debt without a road or a Navy ship or one scientific grant to show for it. Nobody seriously contends that this is wonderful policy resulting from serious deliberation through regular order. It is not. The only reason for this effort, and this is out of the mouths of the legislators themselves, is that there is political pressure from interest groups and donors to get something done. That is the definition of putting party before country. That is exactly what people hate about Congress. This is not what your constituents really want. They don't want their tax breaks to expire while corporate breaks don't. They don't want students to suffer from even more debt. They don't want to lose their healthcare because of the premium spikes we know are going to be coming. They don't want their housing to be more expensive, even, than it is today, and they don't want to face automatic Medicare cuts forced by congressional spending limits. If you are worried about the blowback from not doing something or taking the extra time to get it right, wait until you see the reaction when people realize what is really in this bill after it has already been passed. We can do real tax reform without jeopardizing our children's future. Make the corporate rate 25 percent instead of 20 percent like the Business Roundtable and Mitt Romney both once suggested. That saves $600 billion. If you must lift the exemption for the estate tax, I wouldn't, but don't eliminate it. That saves $50 billion. Maintain the alternative minimum tax for high-earning families, but index it over time so it doesn't catch the middle class. Work with Democrats to find ways to limit tax expenditures, but save the burden for those who can afford it. If my Republican colleagues will commit to doing that, I will commit to working with you, and I will honestly and publicly thank you for putting country before politics.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, my vote was not recorded on rollcall No. 606 on H.R. 3922--The Community Health and Medical Professionals Improve Our Nation Act due to my attendance at the Vatican's Health of People, Health of Planet and Our Responsibility: Climate Change, Air Pollution and Health. I intended to vote ``aye.''

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, my vote was not recorded on rollcall No. 604 on H.R. 849--The Protecting Seniors' Access to Medicare Act due to my attendance at the Vatican's Health of People, Health of Planet and Our Responsibility: Climate Change, Air Pollution and Health. I intended to vote ``aye''.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, our tax system is broken and in desperate need of reform. We need a simpler Tax Code that is fiscally responsible, makes American businesses more competitive, and allows working families to prosper in a 21st century economy. But the Ryan-McConnell tax proposal would do the opposite and fails on the promises made by President Trump to boost the middle class. Middle class families would see an average tax increase of $1,290 per year. That is a 380 percent increase for an average family of four. A new analysis from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center said that the Ryan-McConnell proposal would add $5.6 trillion to the national debt, a 27 percent increase from the current debt which is already too high. Under this proposal, the increased deficits will far outweigh the benefits of reductions, and economic growth and hardworking Americans will both suffer. Instead, we need forward-looking policies that are fiscally responsible and create opportunities for families and businesses in today's economy. That will only come from bipartisan negotiations where we can work together to create the best possible tax conditions for Americans.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Madam Chair, on rollcall 522, I voted ``aye'' when I should have voted ``no'' on the Ellison amendment No. 200. Amendment No. 201 Offered by Mr. Ellison

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, America is founded on the promise that if you work hard and play by the rules, then we will have a place for you. That is the American Dream. There is no reason it shouldn't extend to people who were brought here as young children and have been working since then to build a better life. San Diego is home to 38,000 residents who could be eligible for DACA, the seventh most of any county in America. DREAMers are our friends, our neighbors, and our coworkers, and our economy is more prosperous because of their contributions. Like so many, I was saddened and angry at the decision by President Trump to end the DACA program. It was a cruel action, rooted in fear, that only makes us weaker. Congress must act swiftly to correct this economic and moral catastrophe. We must pass the Dream Act to protect DREAMers, and give them and their employers the certainty that they deserve. The time is right now for Congress to finally step up and do its job.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to this amendment, which would unnecessarily tie the hands of our military as it seeks to diversify its energy supply. The Pentagon is pursuing alternative energy not because they are some kind of tree hugger, but because the diversity of energy options improves mission capabilities and saves lives. Just because the price of oil is low today doesn't mean it won't spike tomorrow and force military leaders to divert resources away from mission priorities. In some cases, this has meant turning ships around and cutting their voyages short because of budgeting issues around fuel. This is of particular concern as we continue the fight against ISIS while pivoting towards the Pacific. The Pacific Ocean has an area of 64 million miles. It includes hotspots like the South China Sea and North Korea, whose recent aggression threatens the region and our security. As we ask our military leaders to respond to threats at a moment's notice, they need the flexibility that comes with alternative energy sources. But you don't need to just hear that from me. That is the position of General Mattis at the Department of Defense, who opposes this amendment. My colleagues on the other side are going to say that this is merely about choosing the most cost-effective option, but this amendment would place an undue burden on DOD procurement managers to track all subsidies and credits for fuel. It doesn't include a waiver for national security considerations or increasing combat effectiveness, and it would inhibit innovations that increase readiness and save lives. A 21st century military with the capability to counter new and dynamic threats cannot be powered solely by the energy sources of yesterday. I encourage my colleagues to join me in opposing this amendment.

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, last year the Pentagon released a directive stating that the Department of Defense must be able to adapt to climate change in order to maintain an effective and efficient U.S. military. General Mattis--now Secretary Mattis--during his Senate confirmation said: ``Climate change is impacting stability in areas of the world where our troops are operating today.'' Bases in the region I represent in San Diego--which is home to the largest concentration of military forces in the world--are already facing challenges from sea level rise, drought, and reliable energy sources. For years, the most decorated military leaders in our country have been telling us that climate change is a national security threat. Congress cannot afford to make this debate about politics or ideology. We don't have to agree on what causes climate change. We only have to agree with our military leaders that the effects of climate change are altering the security environment and the threats we face. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this reckless amendment and ask my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, for everything our veterans have given in service to the country, they have earned their benefits and access to timely, quality healthcare at the VA. That is the promise that was made to them when they volunteered to serve. That is the promise that we in Congress are obligated to keep. Honoring this promise is not just a matter of resources; it also depends on changing the actual culture at the VA. From the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to the doctors and nurses, to the administrators who deal with the flood of appointments that come in, it has to be about serving the veteran, not about serving the bureaucracy. For as long as I have been in Congress, improving VA accountability has been a bipartisan goal. I am glad to see us working across the aisle once again on this legislation that builds on the progress we made in 2014. This bill strengthens whistleblower protections, which encourages employees to call out careless or criminal behavior that we have unfortunately seen too often at VAs around the country. It gives the Secretary greater authority to remove or discipline poorly performing and negligent employees, and it provides a reasonable and efficient appeals process for VA employees that is the subject of compromise. The bill won't solve all the problems at the VA, but by holding bad actors accountable and protecting the hardworking employees who care for our veterans, this bipartisan legislation will improve on the service that our veterans receive. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the work done by my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, the administration, and the veterans service organizations to craft this important piece of legislation, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.'' Let's send this bill to the President's desk and help veterans in my district in San Diego and across the country get the care that they have earned.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, hydropower is one of the few carbon-free energy sources that provides a steady baseload of electricity. Producing more electricity from hydropower helps us meet our clean energy goals and reduce harmful emissions that pollute our air and water. This bill, the Hydropower Permit Extension Act, would cut red tape for hydropower construction permits and incentivize greater investment in this energy source. The act gives already approved hydropower projects an extra year on their initial permit and allows FERC to grant a 4-year extension to projects that are delayed from breaking ground during their initial permit. And as the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) said, right now this takes an act of Congress to extend construction permits for hydropower projects, even though they have gone through a rigorous environmental regulatory process. Moving forward, the ultimate solution to unlocking hydropower is to streamline the regulatory process. It is my hope that we can continue to have bipartisan, productive conversations like these on how to get hydropower projects moving, how to get them approved more quickly, while still meeting high environmental standards. I want to thank Chairman Walden and Ranking Member Pallone, Chairman Upton and Ranking Member Rush, for working with me and the committee to advance this bill through the committee and to the floor. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, our tax system is broken and in desperate need of comprehensive reform. I am ready to get to work on a simpler Tax Code that is fiscally responsible, makes our businesses more competitive, and gives relief to our working families. But President Trump's plan, if you can call it that, is not the answer. According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, Trump's tax plan will cost $5.5 trillion over the next 10 years. Instead of targeting relief to the deserving middle class, President Trump wants to give big breaks to the wealthiest Americans. It is time to stop pretending that tax cuts that favor the wealthy somehow pay for themselves. They don't. Conservative economist Gregory Mankiw has said that only one-third of the cost of tax costs is recouped from growth. So Trump's tax plan would actually be paid for by blowing up the national debt. That will crowd out investment and hurt economic growth, which is the opposite of what we want. We have to do better for working Americans, and I express my interest in working with Members on both sides of the aisle to do just that.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, I have seen this bill every step of the way over the short month we have considered it. I was there for the 26-hour meeting we had at the Energy and Commerce Committee. We didn't have an analysis from the Congressional Budget Office then either. If you want to accuse us of not wanting to know the facts, that is something that is very basic to know. We would like to have that here. Here we are again on the floor without that analysis. Through all of that time, the sad thing is that we have not heard one real argument for how this bill would make health care more affordable and accessible for families in my district in San Diego or anywhere in the country. Now, the healthcare system isn't perfect. There are problems with some insurance markets because they are not providing the choice they should. So let's fix them. But that is not what we are doing. What we are doing is we are on the cusp of passing a bill that is opposed by doctors, nurses, hospitals, patients, seniors, and just about everybody because it would make the problems in our healthcare system worse, not better. This is a bill that, if it were to become law, would rip health insurance coverage away from at least 24 million Americans. That is the Congressional Budget Office. That is not fake news. That is the truth. The bill would leave many Americans with preexisting conditions with premiums they can't afford or without any coverage at all. Today's votes take us one step closer to a system where families go bankrupt over an unexpected illness and our emergency rooms are filled with mothers once again seeking basic care for their children. I refuse to accept that is the best we can do for the American people, and I am voting ``no.''

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Garamendi so much for organizing this discussion of a really important topic. In San Diego, we are a center of genomics, a center of life sciences, and a center of collaborative scientific research that makes groundbreaking discoveries and improves people's lives. In 2015, our research institutions received $768 million in NIH research funding, the most of any metro area in the United States. We are home to places like the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, Sanford Burnham Prebys Medical Discovery Institute, the J. Craig Venter Institute, and the Scripps Research Institute, where world-class scientists are making discoveries that save and improve millions of lives. At the University of California San Diego, UCSD, the Shiley-Marcos Alzheimer's Disease Research Center is part of a collaborative national effort to better diagnose, prevent, treat, and ultimately to cure Alzheimer's. More than 5 million Americans are living with that disease. Alzheimer's kills more Americans every year than breast cancer and prostate cancer combined. It puts a tremendous burden on the family and the loved ones of those battling the disease because for every Alzheimer's patient, there are three people providing unpaid care. Thanks to organizations like Alzheimer's San Diego, there are services to support families that are providing care for their loved ones. We are grateful for that, but we need to do more. Alzheimer's also puts a tremendous burden on our healthcare system, as some of the speakers have mentioned. This year, Alzheimer's and other dementias will cost the Nation $259 billion. As our population ages, those numbers will only go up. It costs on average $1,150 more per month for a senior with Alzheimer's to reside in assisted living. That puts a financial strain on Medicaid, Medicare, and millions of families. The research being done at UCSD and around the country is fueled by the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute on Aging. The investments we make in basic scientific research to better understand the disease are our best chance at developing new therapies and ultimately a cure. One of the most bipartisan victories we have had in Congress since I have been here--this is my third term--was to increase NIH funding and to make a $6.3 billion investment in scientific research, which we did last year. Members of both parties came together with the understanding that NIH funding creates high-paying jobs, grows our economy, and unlocks discovery that changes lives. In his joint address to Congress this year, right here in this room, President Trump said he wanted to find cures to ``free the Earth from the miseries of disease.'' Unfortunately, then he turned around and sent a budget to Congress that slashed funding for NIH, clawing back the progress that we made last year. Our efforts to find cures to diseases like Alzheimer's would be completely undermined by the President's budget. We just can't allow that to happen. I really, again, appreciate Mr. Garamendi for hosting this conversation. I want to let him know that I would be happy to sign on to Ms. Waters and Mr. Smith's letter, which he is also a leader of. I look forward to working with Mr. Garamendi and all of our other colleagues to defend the investment we have made in scientific research last year and to push for even more so that we can begin to win the battle against Alzheimer's and other diseases. That is what it is about, it is about winning. That is what I have been hearing. We want to win this battle. I am very conscious that the United States has written the playbook for how to lead the world in science, and it is by funding basic scientific research, by letting the best scientists in the world compete for those grants that are peer-reviewed--not decided by politicians, but by scientists. That system has worked marvelously well. Let's not kill it. Let's feed it.

Mr. PETERS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. PETERS. I want to leave time for Mr. Raskin, but we talk about this peer-review concept. Maybe people don't understand what that is. What happens is these top scientists from around the world file these grants. They are reviewed not by government employees, not by bureaucrats, not by politicians, but by real scientists, the best in their field, to determine which would win. In the good times, about 25 percent of those grants will be funded by NIH when there is robust funding. Seventy-five percent of them are turned down. That is how selective it is. Unfortunately, now we are looking at 7 to 10 percent funding. That means we are not discovering a lot. We are also turning a lot of our young people off of science. We can't let that happen. Again, we could talk about this all day, but I want to turn to my colleagues. Again, I thank Mr. Garamendi for setting up this discussion.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, I came to Congress ready to help improve our healthcare system. And as our colleagues on Chairman Walden's side have pointed out, there are some insurance markets that aren't providing the choice and the low cost that consumers want, so let's fix them. But that is not what this bill does. This bill takes away health insurance from 24 million Americans, including 37,000 people in my district in San Diego. And the last-minute changes made will cost the Federal Government even more money, without increasing coverage or reducing premiums. Is that really the best we can do? The only reason we are in this mess is because the Speaker of the House only ever sought 218 Republican votes. That is why we are left with a bill that is opposed by doctors, nurses, hospitals, and just about everyone because it makes the problems in our healthcare systems worse, not better. That is what happens when you never even reach out to the other side. Whether this bill dies today, or in the Senate, I hope we can get to work together, Republicans and Democrats, to do better for the American people.