Scott Peters

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. I thank Mr. O'Rourke for putting together this Special Order to talk about what is really an important issue and, with all of the things going on, something that has even got a little bit lost. Madam Speaker, for the region that I represent in San Diego, the border is an economic engine--it is a job creator. Home to the Otay Mesa, San Ysidro, and Tecate ports of entry, San Diego-Baja is the busiest border crossing in the world. From life sciences to electronics, San Diego is an attractive place to start a business and to manufacture goods, in part, because of our proximity to border crossings and international trade. Last month, Mr. O'Rourke and other members of the Congressional Border Caucus and I held a hearing with local leaders from chambers of commerce from around our districts to discuss real pragmatic solutions and issues around the border. I was joined by Jerry Sanders, who San Diegans well know as the former mayor. He is also the former police chief of San Diego and is now the current president of the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce. During that hearing, Mayor Sanders said that an efficient border is a safe border, and he knows something about safety from his time as a police chief. We also know that 99 percent of what gets screened at border crossings is safe and that there is no need to worry about its coming into the country. What we need is to get more efficient at approving the 99 percent of safe cargo and travelers and better at stopping the 1 percent that we don't want to come in. One of the big challenges that we faced when I first came to Congress was in border delays. We saw that delays at the border crossing were costing us, at that point, $7.2 billion of economic activity in our county and 35,000 jobs annually--numbers so big that they are almost unbelievable, but those numbers came from independent assessments. One of the great successes I have had in Congress, in working with my colleagues within our congressional delegation, is to have worked together to secure more than $500 million to finish the expansion and the improvements at the San Ysidro border crossing. We did that in working with Democrats Juan Vargas and Susan Davis and with Republicans Duncan Hunter and Darrell Issa because we all understood how important the United States-Mexico border is to our regional economy. By investing in infrastructure and innovation in San Diego, Tijuana, and across the border, we are keeping Americans safe and supporting the export of goods made in America by American workers. In San Diego and in other communities, we are embracing this forward-looking approach of opportunity and job creation. Now President Trump wants to put us in reverse by building a wall, which we have assessed at $15 billion. I mean, I have heard estimates of its being from $18 billion to $20 billion. By any count, it is a waste of money. Let's say, for purposes of argument, it is $15 billion. It took Congress more than a year to approve $170 million to help Flint, Michigan, recover from a crisis that has poisoned children and left an entire city without clean water--$170 million compared to $15 billion for a wall that nobody needs. We are talking about spending 100 times the money for Flint to build a wall that will do nothing to make us more secure, to make our children safer, or to make us more prosperous. $15 billion is exactly how much the American Society of Civil Engineers says we will need to fill the funding gap for infrastructure needs at all of our Nation's ports for the next decade. So, if you took the money you were going to spend on this wall, you could cover all of the investment we would need at our ports around the country for the next decade. We are going to spend it on a wall. $15 billion is also three times as much money as the Federal Government spends to help the homeless every year. For the cost of this wall, we could build the Navy the 11th aircraft carrier that it needs. For 60 times less--or 1-60th--we could finish the modernization of the Otay Mesa border crossing, which is the third busiest commercial port of entry along our southern border and which facilitates $35 billion in trade every year. What are we doing here? Unlike President Trump's wall, this investment will support long-term job creation and increase revenues and is a much more responsible way to spend American taxpayer dollars. Let's be clear. American taxpayers are going to foot the bill for this wall, not Mexico. It is the leader of the Senate and Speaker Ryan who have committed they are going to spend $15 billion on this wall. That is American taxpayers. That is not Mexico. Instead of trying to turn his campaign rhetoric into policy, we would prefer that President Trump listen to those who understand what business is like at the border, to those who understand that border cities are safe, like El Paso, like San Diego, and that the border is an opportunity for America, not a threat. We don't need a wall. We need to hire more Customs officers. We need newer screening technologies. We need to modernize and expand our infrastructure at other border crossings like we are already doing at San Ysidro. That is how you would create jobs in America. That is how you would keep us safe. I thank my friend Beto O'Rourke for his leadership and for his hosting this conversation today. I look forward to working with the gentleman in diverting this money from this silly proposal--this dangerous proposal--to the kinds of things and investments that our country needs from Texas to California.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the newly elected leadership of the New Democrat Coalition. Our new chair, Jim Himes, and newly elected co-chairs, Jared Polis, Suzan DelBene, Terri Sewell, and Derek Kilmer, are strong, bipartisan pro-growth leaders. They bring the vision and experience to guide the New Democrat Coalition in the 115th Congress. New Dems are pragmatic leaders who stand up for working families and work across the aisle to expand economic opportunity. They are focused on creating jobs and building an economy that leaves no one behind, a mission that will not change under the next administration. I am eager to work with our new leadership--and our 54 members--as we continue to make the New Democrat Coalition the home for strong civil rights and sensible, bipartisan, pro-growth policy in Congress.

Mr. PETERS

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

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would enable the Army Corps of Engineers to use the best technology available to ensure our infrastructure is structurally sound and avoid the loss of property, money, and lives. Specifically, it directs the Secretary of the Army to use structural health monitoring to evaluate its construction projects and current infrastructure to mitigate damage from floods, earthquakes, sea level rise, and other disasters both before and after a major event. The increased frequency and magnitude of the extreme weather events have high recovery costs for the Federal Government. In 2012, Superstorm Sandy caused an estimated $50 billion in damages and forced more than 775,000 people to flee their homes. The Federal Government provided $136 billion in assistance, amounting to $1,160 per taxpayer. These costs can be prevented. Research has shown that every $1 spent on preparedness saves $4 in disaster recovery costs. How we prepare before disaster strikes determines how much we spend and, more importantly, how many lives we save. Successful planning and preparation require consultation with experts and access to the best available data with structural health monitoring sensors that can detect in near realtime the existence, location, and severity of the damage to infrastructure. Data from these sensors can provide essential information on the condition of infrastructure, ranging from bridges to skyscrapers, following a natural disaster like an earthquake; but effective management of these structures is not one size fits all. Access to realtime-specific data through structural health monitoring technology will enable the Army Corps to prioritize buildings and structures that need immediate maintenance. By working proactively rather than reactively, we can avoid further damage and higher costs. Data show we will only be more likely to see more extreme weather, sea level rise, and floods that can significantly damage our buildings and bridges in the future. Those disasters are not only costly but dangerous. We need to provide the groups responsible for maintaining our Nation's infrastructure the tools they need to do so. I thank the chairman, the ranking member, and the committee for considering this amendment. I ask my colleagues to support this smart, commonsense amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, North Charleston, South Carolina, June 29, 2013: Maurice Lamark Horry, 41 years old; Carlos Davis, 39; Theodore Waymyers, Jr., 36. Waco, Texas, May 17, 2015: Jesus Delgado Rodriguez, 65 years old; Richard Vincent Kirshner, 47; Charles Wayne Russell, 46; Daniel Raymond Boyett, 44; Wayne Lee Campbell, 43; Manuel Issac Rodriguez, 40; Jacob Lee Rhyne, 39; Richard Matthew Jordan, 31 years old; Matthew Mark Smith, 27. Manchester, Illinois, April 24, 2013: Joanne Sinclaire, 64 years old; Roy Ralston, 29; Brittany Luark, 22; Nolan Ralston, 5 years old; Brantley Ralston, 1 year old. Olympia, Washington, June 22, 2016: Gerald M. Berkey, 36 years old; Terron R. McGrath, 31; Jackson Edens, 28. New Orleans, Louisiana, August 10, 2014: Terrance McBride, 33 years old; Jasmine Anderson, 16.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, Moultrie, Georgia, May 15, 2016: Jordan Croft, 22 years old; Reid Williams, 21; Jones Pidcock, 21; Jonathan Edwards, 21; Alicia Norman, 20. Vallejo, California, February 11, 2013: Oscar Garcia, 22 years old. Jackson, Mississippi, March 7, 2013: Ronald Williams, 33 years old; Kendra Hill, 28. New Port Richey, Florida, February 9, 2015: Louis Wayne Lunceford, 44 years old; Shane Newland, 42; Justin Huckeby, 25. Fremont, Ohio, March 9, 2014: Ramiro Sanchez, 28 years old; Police Officer Jose Andy Chavez, 26; Daniel Ramirez, 25. Douglasville, Georgia, February 7, 2015: Latoya Andrews, 33 years old; Joseph Terry Brown, 33; Jeremiah Andrews, 9; London Andrews, 7.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congresswoman Sinema for organizing this bipartisan gathering to raise awareness about the suicide epidemic plaguing our veterans community and for the gentlewoman's leadership on this important cause. San Diego is home to the third largest population of veterans in the Nation. Every year, roughly half of the servicemembers stationed in San Diego are discharged and stay in the region after they leave service. With more than 236,000 residing in San Diego County, honoring our commitment to veterans--the benefits they earned through their service--is one of the most important jobs we have in Congress, and I think folks are recognizing that here tonight. During Suicide Prevention Month, we turn our focus to ending the awful reality of veteran suicide that has hurt families and communities across the country. Every day, 20 veterans tragically take their own lives. Regardless of the number or rates, every veteran suicide is one too many. But there is much more we can do. Mental health issues are still stigmatized in our country, but it is time we recognized the unique challenges faced by servicemembers and veterans in this regard. Post-traumatic stress is all too prevalent among our warfighters when they return home. We don't call it a disorder because it is often a perfectly natural reaction to the horrors that they have seen and the difficulties they have experienced. So we have to come together as a nation to address this issue. Our men and women in uniform deserve our dedication, just as they dedicated their lives to serving our Nation. In San Diego, we are taking some innovative and collaborative approaches to addressing veteran suicide by combining government, private groups, and community partners. Since 2014, zero8hundred has helped local veterans transition from Active Duty to civilian life. This community-based nonprofit connects with servicemembers before they leave the military, and it makes sure that they know about the abundant services and community resources available to them as they transition themselves into new jobs and into new lives. Courage to Call is another San Diego resource, a 24/7 helpline completely staffed by veterans ready to speak with Active Duty military, reservists, Guard members, and fellow vets to help them navigate challenges that come with life in and after the service. In war, servicemembers depend on one another for guidance and support, and they should have that same support as civilians. This service was started in San Diego by 2-1-1, a local public-private partnership, a nexus to connect community resources with the individuals that can take advantage of them. It is a perfect example of how providing a central portal for benefits, employment, and housing help simplify the process and get veterans the benefits that they earn. We also have medical centers that use innovative models of care to meet the needs of our servicemembers and veterans. I hope we can implement some of these same standards of care across the country. But that is not possible unless we come together--come together as leaders--and pass bipartisan reforms to veterans care. As Congresswoman Sinema has mentioned, she and I have had the honor of working with Dr. Howard and Jean Somers, who have been tireless advocates for reforming the broken healthcare system at the Department of Veterans Affairs after they lost their son, Daniel, to suicide in 2013. While it is not perfect, and we have a lot of implementation steps to take, the Veterans Choice Act and the Veterans Accountability Act that we debated earlier tonight will help bring accountability to a system wrought with oversight and leadership challenges. We also need to provide more flexible treatment options like telehealth technologies that allow veterans to receive care from the comfort of their homes. Finally, and I think maybe most importantly, we need to break the stigma of mental health issues once and for all. We know how difficult it has been to deal with the veterans who come to the VA for care, but there is a great number who never touch the VA who suffer in loneliness at home and have never connected with the VA even with a phone call, and they take their lives before they even make the attempt. We need to do a better job of outreach to those folks to make sure that they know that they have the support of the veterans community and the larger community at home. We have to treat these unseen battle scars with the same gravity and respect as the visible ones. We owe it to our Nation's heroes to end the tragedy of veteran suicide. This is a conversation I am proud to be a part of. I am committed to constructive results. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Ms. Sinema again for her leadership on this and for organizing this evening.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, everyone who doesn't deny the science understands that climate change is real and dangerous. Uncontrolled carbon pollution is going into the atmosphere, trapping more heat, and warming the planet. Americans are experiencing the results in every part of this country. From more devastating fires in the West, including San Diego, to flooding in West Virginia, to coastal erosion in superstorms along the east coast, we are experiencing climate change today and it is getting worse. We have a choice--pretend it is not happening and abandon future generations, or start to clean up the carbon pollution that is driving climate change. As President Obama recently said: ``Climate change is no longer some far-off problem. It is happening here. It is happening now.'' We can't wait for some future generation to take action. To that end, the EPA finalized a workable plan to reduce carbon emissions from power plants, which are the largest uncontrolled source of man-made greenhouse gases in the United States. The Clean Power Plan gives the States tremendous flexibility to choose how to achieve those reductions. The goals are State-specific and cost-effective. This is a moderate and reasonable approach that ensures flexibility, affordability, reliability, and investment in clean energy technologies; and polls show that the public supports the Clean Power Plan by large majorities. It outlines a path to cleaner air, better health, a safer climate, and a stronger economy. If we make these investments in cleaner energy, the United States can be the world leader in industries of the future. The majority wants to stop this. They want to deny the science, pretend climate change isn't happening, and let power plants keep spewing carbon pollution without control. They refuse to act to limit carbon pollution, and now they are outraged that President Obama is keeping his word and using his authority under the Clean Air Act to act because we in Congress won't. So they included language in the underlying bill that aims to block the implementation of the Clean Power Plan and the EPA's carbon pollution standards for new and modified power plants. This is a ``just say `no''' agenda. My amendment strikes the harmful rider from the bill. Let's not heed the arguments on behalf of companies that profit from the status quo. These are defeatist arguments. They aren't interested in developing a plan to help us reduce emissions while maintaining a reasonably and reliably priced electricity system. We have already wasted enough time on legislation to ``just say `no''' to climate action. Now Congress must move on. What we cannot do, as President Obama said, is ``condemn our children to a planet beyond their capacity to repair it.'' I strongly urge my colleagues to support my amendment. The Clean Power Plan is an important, long overdue, and critical tool in our fight against global climate change. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), I offer amendment No. 29.

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chair, I understand the gentleman's concern about coal. Without the implementation of the Clean Power Plan, coal has been affected by the market, not by the EPA, and the availability of natural gas has certainly, I think, hurt the coal industry. I understand that, but this is a sensible approach to dealing with air quality and climate change; and I urge my colleagues to support it. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chair, my amendment would strike section 434, a harmful policy rider that limits the ability of our environmental agencies to take action to improve public health and to fight the root causes of climate change. If we are to lower the impact of greenhouse gas emissions, we need Federal action. The largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States is from burning fossil fuels, which raises atmospheric levels of CO2. Greenhouse gas emissions can affect coastal regions, energy, defense, food supplies, wildfire preparedness, and our quality of life. This rider blocks the Environmental Protection Agency's ongoing efforts to reduce the damage that hydrofluorocarbons do to our climate. Hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs, are factory-made gasses that are used in air-conditioning and refrigeration and are up to 10,000 times more potent pound for pound than carbon dioxide. While not as abundant as carbon dioxide, super pollutants, like HFCs and methane, have contributed up to 40 percent of observed global warming. Unless we act now, the United States' HFC emissions are expected to double by 2020 and to triple by 2030. By limiting the EPA's authority under the Clean Air Act to propose, finalize, or enforce any regulation or guidance regarding HFCs, this rider would undercut its ability to protect public health and to demonstrate American leadership in emissions reductions. The EPA's Significant New Alternatives Policy Program, or SNAP, requires us to evaluate substitutes that are already being developed by industry for super pollutants like HFCs. Through SNAP, we can ensure a more smooth transition to safer alternatives for our country's industrial sector. Last year, the SNAP finalized a new rule on HFCs that the Environmental Investigation Agency estimates will reduce emissions by 2030 by the equivalent of taking 21 million cars off the road. The standards set by the EPA will drive U.S. and international innovation and the market development of low-emission and energy- efficient refrigeration, air-conditioning, foam blowing agents, and aerosol technologies. These innovations will actually get at one of the root causes of climate change before we are forced to react to increasingly extreme weather and sea level rise. By embracing these forward-thinking proposals, we can tackle the low- hanging fruit while adopting alternatives that are actually much more energy efficient than current HFCs. This is one example of how embracing the clean energy revolution doesn't just limit damage to our climate but also increases America's competitiveness and creates economic opportunity. Last year, we saw major companies, including Coca-Cola, Carrier, DuPont, Honeywell, PepsiCo, and other industry leaders commit to voluntarily reducing harmful HFC emissions. I appreciate the concerns of some in the industry about the pace at which they are required to transition to lower emission materials, but the answer to that is not to halt this process entirely. Preventing the SNAP program from functioning when less harmful materials are being developed is not the right approach. My amendment strikes this shortsighted rider so that America can continue to be a leader in advancing innovative solutions to reducing our emissions. We should not be handcuffing the important work being done at the EPA to reduce super pollutants. I ask my colleagues to support the amendment. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chair, I take the gentleman's point. I would just say again that, if there are concerns about the timeline, I would be more than willing to work--and I am sure my colleagues would--on a better timeline, but stopping all activity is not the answer. That is why I think this is the appropriate response; so I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chair, the social--or real--cost of carbon is the monetary estimate of the damages caused by carbon dioxide emissions to the environment, health, and economic growth. Today's bill contains an unnecessary and harmful policy rider that would delay, indefinitely, incorporating that cost in rulemaking or guidance documents. My amendment would strike that bad rider and would, instead, put us on a path of responsible policymaking that reflects the realities of changing climates and increasingly extreme weather events. Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's bipartisan Risky Business report notes that accounting for the real cost of carbon emissions and preparing for climate change is a smart business practice. If we continue on our current path, by 2050, between $66 billion and $106 billion worth of existing coastal property will likely be below sea level nationwide. Eighty percent of California's GDP is derived from our coastal counties. Greenhouse gas-driven changes in temperature by burning fossil fuels will necessitate construction of new power generation that Mayor Bloomberg's report estimates will cost residential and commercial ratepayers as much as $12 billion per year. That is $12 billion that could be spent by families to put their kids through school or to buy a home. It could be spent by businesses to hire more employees or give annual bonuses. Accounting for the social cost of carbon now provides greater certainty and greater freedom in the future. I anticipate my colleagues in opposition to this amendment will suggest that the harmful rider merely delays using the social cost of carbon until a new working group can update the data we use to guide rulemaking. In practice, this would send this rule back to the drawing board when the data we have now about how carbon emissions damage our economy and our health is perfectly adequate and backed by peer- reviewed science. By adding more layers of bureaucracy, this rider rejects a forward- thinking approach already used by the private sector and backed by science in favor of the status quo, in favor of doing nothing. There is a real cost to our environment and our prosperity associated with delaying this rule. For too long we have heard that we have had to choose between supporting prosperity and a clean environment. The implication is we can't have both, but that is a false choice we can't afford to make. We have to provide both economic opportunity and clean water and air for future generations. I want to take a cue from the private sector, from businesses that already account for the cost of carbon, and let's be sensible and support this amendment. I want to thank my friends--Congressman Polis, Congressman Lowenthal, Congresswoman Esty, Congressman Beyer, and Congressman Welch--for backing this effort. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time I have remaining.

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lowenthal).

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).

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

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, I would just say, again, I think the gentleman makes an excellent point that 7 percent is a pretty aggressive discount rate and maybe we should talk about the methodology. But what we should not do is prevent the discussion in its entirety, which is what that language does. So I hope that my colleagues will support our amendment and that we will be able to get it right. We can agree on a methodology that fairly represents this issue, and I would be happy to work with my colleague. I hope they will support my amendment so we can, at least, have this discussion. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PETERS

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