Scott Peters

Mr. PETERS of California

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

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

Mr. PETERS of California. 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 proceed immediately to final passage, as amended. My amendment simply states that the bill won't take effect if it results in fewer cleaned-up sites, if it shifts responsibility from polluters to the American taxpayers, and if there is greater exposure to carcinogens for schools, hospitals, and nursing homes within 5 miles of a contaminated site. Mr. Speaker, for too long, we have heard as an article of faith that we have to choose between a prosperous economy and a clean environment, the idea that we can't have both. That is a false choice. People in San Diego and people around the country know that we deserve nothing less than both. We need to provide both economic opportunity and clean air and water for our future generations. In my first career, for 15 years, I practiced environmental law in the public and private sectors. Many of my clients were businesses or local governments that struggled to understand and follow what they felt were overly complex and time-consuming regulatory requirements, and from this experience, I have no doubt that overly burdensome red tape hurts our economy. So I hope that in any case where we can streamline and simplify environmental regulations, while still protecting and enhancing the health of our rivers, lakes, oceans, and air, that everyone in this Congress would be onboard. I hope that we all agree that real substantive protections are important to ensuring that our drinking water, ocean water, and the land we live and farm on are safe for our children, the elderly, and our families. These resources are economic assets that we have inherited, that we have a responsibility to preserve, and that we must be active stewards in protecting. At the heart of the Superfund program is the commonsense idea that those who caused pollution would pay to clean it up. The underlying bill turns away from this basic principle and, instead, puts hardworking taxpayers who didn't cause the pollution on the hook for the expensive cleanups. That is not right, and it is not a good incentive for preventing future contamination. The bill creates an unfunded mandate by allowing States to move polluted sites off of their regulatory plates to the Federal Superfund list, shifting responsibility from corporations and States to the Federal taxpayer, and just as the Congress has slashed the Superfund budget 40 percent over the last 5 years. If we add more sites to the already burdened Federal list, we will certainly delay cleanups at the expense of human health and the environment. Second, the bill, for the first time ever, would subject our Federal employees to unfair penalties and perhaps even imprisonment if, in the good faith execution of their duties, they find that they can't comply with a State order because it directly conflicts with Federal law. Putting Federal workers who are tasked with cleaning up these heavily polluted sites in this position is beyond bad management, it is cruelly unfair, and it effectively scares employees from doing the very job we pay them, as taxpayers, to do. Finally, the Department of Defense has serious concerns with the bill, as it would make it difficult to clean up many of the nearly 10,000 Superfund sites on military bases. According to the military, the bill would waste money on unnecessary litigation instead of actual site cleanup. Just north of my district in San Diego, a part of Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton is a Superfund site. Nine areas of soil and groundwater have been contaminated by pesticides, metals, herbicides, and more. These waters sources flow into the neighboring Pacific Ocean, and every day that we delay the cleanup and restoration of this site, our servicemembers, civilians working on the site, and numerous endangered species in the region face adverse risks. We cannot let this continue. In these lean fiscal times, we must make the most of limited Federal resources and taxpayer dollars. This legislation would bring with it unnecessary litigation, more spending that doesn't go to fixing the problems, exactly the kind of waste we are trying to eliminate from the Federal budget. My motion to recommit ensures that we are both careful stewards of the taxpayer dime and the environment. We must support laws that protect human health and the environment and continue to enforce the idea that polluters--not hardworking taxpayers--pay for what they pollute. I call on my colleagues not to fall for the false choice between growing the economy and protecting the environment. We can and we must do both. Vote ``yes'' on this motion, and stand with me to protect the taxpayer, protect children's health, and ensure that those who cause pollution pay to clean it up. Mr. Speaker. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. PETERS of California

Mr. PETERS of California. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 641 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes.'' Personal explanation

Mr. PETERS of California

Mr. PETERS of California. Thank you, Ms. Speier. I would like to thank you, my colleague from California, for organizing this discussion and for your continued efforts to end the assault on NIH funding. Mr. Speaker, for decades, our country has been at the forefront of scientific discovery. We have had the friendliest atmosphere for scientists to do their work, for innovators to start their new ventures, and for universities to invest in research laboratories. We are in danger of losing that competitive advantage, and the across-the-board sequester cuts, which I adamantly opposed during my time here, is only amplifying the decline. Now, instead of supporting and promoting our country's robust backing for scientific and health research, we are undercutting it through congressional gridlock and government shutdowns. This inability to find bipartisan agreement has undoubtedly harmed our national reputation and limits our ability to bring the best and brightest here from around the world. Earlier this year, I toured the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda to visit some of their labs, to meet with patients and hear from its director, Dr. Francis Collins, about the work that NIH does and how the sequester has affected them. Dr. Collins, as Ms. Speier said, has been a constant voice against the sequester and has vocalized the impact it has had on the ability of NIH to invest in necessary research and grants. Just this year, more than 700 grants were cut and the agency was forced to pare down its operations by $1.5 billion. Dr. Collins told Sam Stein of the Huffington Post on the 10-year outlook, should sequester not end, and I quote, I think we may have just heard this quote: I think we will no longer be the world leader in the production of science, technology, and innovation. As the largest funder of biomedical research in the world, the NIH is not only a significant driver of research and innovation, leading to improvements in quality of life and better patient care, but it also drives job creation in related fields. In 2011, more than 400,000 jobs and $62 billion of economic activity came from NIH research funding. And on a health level, advances from NIH research can have enormous economic benefit for the global economy. A 1 percent reduction in cancer deaths has $500 billion in economic value. Imagine what the power would be of delaying the onset of chronic diseases or finding cures to various types of cancer. Importantly, NIH is also a significant funder of research universities across the country through its competitive grants. According to NIH documents, more than 80 percent of their budget is awarded to our country's universities and institutes, including $884 million in grants to San Diego institutions just in 2012. In the last fiscal year, institutions in my district received more than 1,300 NIH grants. UC San Diego received almost $400 million through 802 grants in 2012 alone, supporting thousands of jobs in the San Diego region, and advancing our local innovation economy. San Diego, depending on how you calculate it, is either the second or third largest life science cluster in the country. These companies and research institutions make up approximately one-third of San Diego's regional economy, generating more than 200,000 jobs. Nationwide, life sciences companies support more than 7 million jobs, adding $69 billion in activity to our national economy. Locally, Amplyx Pharmaceuticals received more than $1.5 million in NIH grants to research and develop new drugs to fight functional infections, and Digital Proteomics received a grant to research antibodies that target specific antigens, leading to better treatments for numerous diseases. Other examples are the La Jolla Institute for Allergy and Immunology, where they are researching breakthrough vaccines to some of the world's most damaging immune diseases, including type 1 diabetes and various types of cancer, and the Veterans Medical Research Foundation, where studies on PTSD and brain imaging are underway to better understand the impact of violence and conflict on the body and brain. These institutions have received numerous grants this year, totaling more than $30 million. As the last local example, in 2011, the Sanford-Burnham Medical Research Institute received more than $70 million in NIH funding as part of its research in metabolic rates and obesity. And Scripps Research, also in San Diego, was awarded more than $200 million, part of which went to their research on determining the structure of H1N1, also known as the swine flu. Mr. Speaker, there are countless examples across San Diego and the country like the ones I just named where researchers are doing groundbreaking research that has the potential to improve and extend lives. That is good for our economy, for the American people, and for the health of people across the world. Clearly, not all scientific research can or should be funded by the Federal Government or NIH. I wouldn't advocate that, nor my colleagues, but I can't stand for continuing down the path of sequester, where we cut support for the hardworking scientists and researchers who have brought the United States to the front of the pack. Later this week, I will be introducing a bill to extend the research and development tax credit and lower the barrier to collaborative research by encouraging collaboration and consortia. That is just one piece of a larger discussion we have to have as we look to reform the Tax Code so we incentivize innovators, entrepreneurs, and researchers to start their endeavors here in the United States. Sam Stein also reported in the Huffington Post in August that nearly 20 percent of scientists were contemplating moving their operations overseas in part due to the sequester. Other countries, China, Brazil, Germany, South Korea, Japan, Israel, they are making investments in science and in research and development that will threaten to leave us in the dust. Brain drain will be a reality if we do not act quickly, a phenomena that would affect many communities across the country in a very negative way, including my own. On first read, the budget deal proposed last night by Senator Murray and Congressman Ryan, if it passes Congress later this week, would allow the NIH more flexibility. It would potentially bring back some funding to NIH and NSF over the next 2 years. But let's be clear. Scientists, universities, and institutions are still looking at unstable long-term budgets where sequester looms over their head. And as lawmakers, we can't rest on this foolish sequester cut until these cuts are fully reversed. Again, I want to thank Ms. Speier for organizing this Special Order. NIH funding and our Nation's overall support for basic scientific research funding and the innovation economy are central to the economic future of San Diego, of California, and of the entire country. So I appreciate the opportunity to speak about ending the sequester, about promoting and increasing funding for basic scientific research, especially at NIH, and to a continued discussion here in Congress.

Mr. PETERS of California

Mr. PETERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight the growing involvement of San Diego area schools and businesses in the Live Well San Diego initiative. Live Well San Diego engages the San Diego community from government, business, military, faith groups, and schools to improve the health, fitness, and safety of our residents. Preventible chronic diseases contribute to over 50 percent of deaths in the region, and Live Well San Diego is working to find innovative ways to reduce their impact and lower national health care costs in the long term. Through involvement with schools in my district, Live Well San Diego is reducing childhood obesity through daily physical education and recess breaks. Earlier this year, the San Diego North Chamber of Commerce joined with Live Well San Diego to educate area business owners about creating workplaces that focus on health and wellness. Clear Channel Communications has also partnered with Live Well San Diego to spread the word. Recently, the initiative launched a Web site, livewellsd.org, to give residents information to live healthier lives. Live Well San Diego is an example of how collaborative public-private partnerships are working to improve public health. I am proud of the work that Live Well San Diego is doing for the people of San Diego County. Our residents are happier and healthier because of it.

Mr. PETERS of California

Mr. PETERS of California. Mr. Speaker, today we pay tribute to the life of Gloria Johnson, a nationally recognized activist and San Diego community leader who worked tirelessly for more than 50 years for social justice and civil rights. With Gloria's passing this September, it is fitting we honor her as a strong-willed, compassionate, loyal, and tenacious trailblazer whose legacy will continue through those she mentored and in the communities she nurtured. Gloria will be remembered as a champion for women, the LGBT community, and progressive values. Gloria was born on August 26 and took immense pride in the fact she shared her birthday with Women's Equality Day, and she lived in accordance with its principles. Gloria was a member of the National Organization for Women for more than 40 years, including serving as a state board member and president of the local chapter. She campaigned for the Equal Rights Amendment, even receiving jail time for civil disobedience after protesting the measure's defeat. In addition to campaigning arduously for women leaders including Hilary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and many in our local and state legislatures, Gloria served as a mentor to many young women and was appointed to the Governor's Committee on Women's Issues and inducted into the county's Women's Hall of Fame, thus promoting women's rights in multiple forums. Gloria worked for the County of San Diego for thirty years, serving as a champion for the LGBT community. During the latter half of her tenure, and at the onset of the AIDS epidemic, she was one of the first social workers in San Diego to work with individuals suffering from the disease in the county's AIDS Case Management Program. Gloria took immense pride in that work, for which San Diego's LGBT community is profoundly grateful. Additionally, she served as cochair of a committee created to defeat a 1978 California state initiative that would have banned gays and lesbians from teaching in public schools. While she most recently served as cochair of the California Democratic Party LGBT Caucus, Gloria's extensive political activism and leadership began many years prior. In 1977, she joined the newly formed San Diego Democratic Club (now Democrats for Equality), became president of the club in 1980, and remained a sitting board member until her death. Named one of The Advocate's top 400 U.S. gay leaders in 1984, she also served as founding member of Lesbian Rights Task Force and board member of the National Stonewall Democrats. Mr. Speaker, it is with great respect that I ask my colleagues in the House of Representatives to join me in paying tribute to the life of Gloria Johnson. Gloria's active leadership, steadfast beliefs, pioneering character, and inclusive spirit will be missed by many.

Mr. PETERS of California

Mr. PETERS of California. Thank you very much, Mr. Tonko. I appreciate the chance to speak with you on this special occasion. I am the climate task force chair of the House Sustainable Energy and Environmental Coalition, SEEC, and I rise to recognize the 1-year anniversary of Superstorm Sandy and to recognize those who have lost their lives as well as those continuing to rebuild from the destruction. I might mention, for the benefit of Mr. Holt, that I am a graduate of Westfield High. I spent my high school years in New Jersey. I still have sisters in Chatham and New Providence and nieces and nephews. I visited regularly Long Beach Island, Ship Bottom, and Beach Haven for family vacations. So I know well a lot of those areas and how hard they have been hit both from a personal and an economic standpoint. I want to speak a little bit too about San Diego, though, as it has been my home for 25 years. My constituents in San Diego have experienced and know the long rebuilding and recovery process after disaster strikes, and we have a little bit of a different effect from climate change and global warming. October marks the 10-year anniversary--and I think the anniversary was a few days ago--of the beginning of the Cedar Fire, the largest wildfire in California history. As a San Diego City Council member at the time, I remember firsthand the destructive impact of this fire on people's lives. It destroyed hundreds of homes, personal belongings and memories, and the recovery costs were in the billions of dollars. The Cedar Fire burned through 273,246 acres of San Diego County, destroyed 2,232 homes, and took 15 lives. It burned through 95 acres of the Cuyamaca State Park and blazed through 98 percent of its mature conifer trees. To date, little of the forest has grown back from the bare mineral soil left behind by the wildfire. The community faced similar damage in 2007 during the Witch Creek Fire, and parts of the city of San Diego were also scarred at that time. Wildfires aren't new to California, but the damages from these fires are rising. This will sound familiar when we think about the warmest years on record all being recent. In California, 12 of the 20 most damaging wildfires occurred in the last 10 years. This has huge implications for California's tourism and farming industries. For example, take the Rim Fire this summer that pushed into parts of the Yosemite National Park and devastated local tourism. After the Cedar Fire, San Diego, the county and the city, are undoubtedly more prepared and ready to respond to a large wildfire. We have better communication equipment, better communication among agencies, and better fire equipment in general. More importantly, we have worked to minimize further damage through better planning. As Thom Porter, the chief of the San Diego Fire Authority said, ``It's not about stopping a fire from occurring but preventing the amount of damage it causes.'' Today San Diego has new planning guidelines and building codes and 100-foot brush clearance requirements around homes. Before 2003, it was just 30 feet. We found that we could decrease risk and save homes and lives. Resiliency starts at the local level because they know the conditions and the situations on the ground. They are the people who can talk to the neighbors about what they have to do to be ready. We have to make our communities more resilient to wildfires, hurricanes, and other extreme weather. In the last 5 years, wildfires have cost taxpayers more than $1.6 billion a year. Last year, 9.2 million acres were burned by wildfires, which is an area bigger than the States of Delaware, Rhode Island, and Connecticut combined. In June, I introduced the bipartisan STRONG Act so the Federal Government could give tools for planning and resiliency to State and local actors. I think one of the first things we noticed as freshmen here, one of the first votes we were asked to take, was $60 billion for Sandy relief, which was the appropriate vote to take. We have spent $136 billion on relief in the last 2 years off the budget. Every dollar we spend now on disaster preparedness and resiliency, we can avoid at least $4 in future losses and FEMA expenses. We can bounce back faster with less economic damage. Each day that a community is disrupted by extreme weather, we lose economic output. So we need to be doing more to support our local communities with emergency management communication, public health, and energy reliability in the event of an extreme weather event, whether it is a wildfire or something like Superstorm Sandy. Swiss Re, a major reinsurer, recently ranked the top 10 metro areas in North and Central America that face the highest value of working days lost from natural perils. Nine of them were in the United States. On this occasion, I commit with my colleagues to better protect my district from the devastation caused by extreme weather by working to rebuild stronger and smarter with a mind for the future. Again, thank you very much for inviting me. I would be happy to discuss some of these items.

Mr. PETERS of California. Just to follow on. I think what Mr. Cartwright said is exactly right. We don't know that our house is going to burn down, yet we buy fire insurance because we know that there is a risk of it. I often hear in this building, unfortunately, a lot of professed doubts about climate change; but even though I disagree with it, I think the science is pretty clear. If you doubt it, that doesn't mean it is not going to happen and you don't prepare for it and you don't plan for it and you don't make the investments to be more resilient, which is what the STRONG Act is about. So I completely agree. In the face of doubt, that doubt should not equal inaction. The fact that we have the strong evidence that this is happening, that we have had these off-budget expenses, is every reason in the world we need here to plan. I would say to folks listening at home that they need to get in touch with people in this body to let them know that. One thing I would just add briefly about what we did in San Diego, I was chair of a volunteer climate initiative which was part of the San Diego Foundation's effort to do civic engagement. What we tried to do was, through philanthropy, provide good support for decisionmaking locally around climate, because a lot of leadership, as you know, Mr. Tonko, is happening at the local level. We provided research on science. We did a study of what the major climate effects in San Diego would be, which are more intense wildfires, water supply threats, and sea level rise--no surprise to anyone here. And we were able to give that information to our elected officials so that they knew what we had to plan with locally. We also did a public opinion survey just to let them know what people thought. It turned out that people in San Diego wanted to be leaders on climate action. First of all, they wanted to be leaders in the State. They also didn't want the jobs associated with the industrial opportunities to be going to China or Texas. So we were able to arm our elected officials with that information and made them a lot bolder about taking the actions that we needed to take. I bet the people in this body would benefit from the same kind of information and wouldn't be surprised that America is behind us in taking action, particularly on getting ready and being resilient and being prepared to save money down the road. No one likes spending $134 billion off-budget. I certainly didn't, and I know my colleagues don't. There is no need to do that. We can be prepared. Again, thank you very much for scheduling this at this hour.

Mr. PETERS of California

Mr. PETERS of California. I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. PETERS of California. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the chance to hold this Special Order with some of my freshman colleagues. I heard some discussion from yesterday, and even some tonight, and thought that it would be appropriate for some of the freshman who just got here and don't have some of the perspective that has pervaded some of the discussion, haven't been here for a lot of the most bitter battles, maybe have a little bit more of a problem-solving attitude, to give our perspective on some of these things and maybe have a constructive discussion of the government shutdown and also the debt ceiling, which I think is a very, very serious thing to discuss as part of a negotiation. The news today in San Diego will be about the cancellation of the Miramar Air Show that was to take place this weekend. This is a great tradition for our community, an important fundraiser for military families, and really a sad casualty of the current shutdown. I would like to start my comments by highlighting a more hidden and much more serious effect of the shutdown, just by sharing a couple of emails I received from constituents in the last 3 days. First: I am an engineer that has supported the Navy and Marine Corps for 26 years and have always given 100 percent to ensure that our military has the best capabilities in the world. Most of the people I work with have gone above and beyond to give the Navy and USMC our very best, especially during the many years of wartime. Due to sequestration and previous furloughs, I have already lost $10,000 of income this year and completely depleted my family's savings account. Now I am being furloughed again and this follows 3 years of frozen pay. I am worried for my wife and two young children because I cannot pay the bills if this shutdown continues. I do not blame one party or the other. I am sure they both think they are doing the right thing. But I worry that they do not know the pain they are causing for the families of dedicated and hardworking civil servants. A second one: I am writing to you today concerning our government shutdown. I am an Active Duty spouse of 15 years with two children. We recently moved to Coronado from Naples, Italy. I have made several sacrifices over the years to follow my husband's career. I have always felt that my husband's job as an officer in the United States Navy was worthy of my sacrifices. I have stood proud by his side. We have moved 11 times within our 15 years of service, and as always we have budgeted our housing allowance, cost of living, and pay. Today, as I read all the negative comments on social media threads, I feel as though I have wasted 15 years of my life. I almost fell off the treadmill on the base gym this morning when it hit me: all of the holidays my husband has missed--the birthdays and the anniversaries spent alone--for what reason? For 535 of you to shut us down? Thank God I did not fall off the treadmill this morning, as now our medical staff is on furlough and the area is severely understaffed. Finally, I am a proud American and that is why I proudly work at the Naval Medical Center in San Diego as a nurse practitioner with the Department of Surgery. I have already endured one furlough. This resulted in a 20 percent pay reduction this summer. I was grateful it ended earlier than planned, but now I am furloughed with a 100 percent loss in pay. It has to stop. As a San Diego resident, I know you are aware that your mortgages are higher than most. I am also a single mother of two wonderful girls. This makes the additional furlough that much harder to swallow. Please work with your fellow Representatives to make this government shutdown end as soon as possible. It is hurting the average American much more than D.C. seems to understand. If our elected officials were forced to take a 20 percent pay reduction and have that followed by a 100 percent pay loss, I am sure the budget would be fixed. I just want to continue to do my job and would appreciate being allowed to do just that. If this continues further, I will be forced to seek other employment. My faith in our government is failing quickly. Again, please work together to end this situation. There are stories like that from all these Federal workers. More than 800,000 Federal workers are out of work during the government shutdown. It is not just the D.C. metro area that is affected, as you've heard. From Hawaii to Georgia, workers in regions all over the country rely heavily on the Federal Government. San Diego is the seventh-ranked city with a high share of Federal employees. We have 151,000 workers--10.9 percent of our workforce is affected by this government shutdown. Obviously, the same is true in Colorado Springs, which is number one; Virginia Beach; Honolulu; the D.C. region; Ogden-Clearfield, Utah; El Paso; Augusta, Georgia; San Diego; and Charleston. Every one of those places has thousands of stories, just like the ones I have told. It is important for us in D.C. to remember the effect that we are having in the real world. That has often been the biggest surprise for me, that when I leave my district and I've heard these stories and I come here, and we hear that people are talking in these terms of blame and calling each other names and not really doing credit to this institution, and far from solving the problems that have gotten us here. I have heard a lot of people say: We don't want to shut the government down. Well, we don't have to. I have heard a lot of finger- pointing about who caused it. But the fact is that today the power to reopen this government rests solely within the House of Representatives. We know what we have to do. We don't have to wait for the Senate, and we don't have to wait for the President. We can pass a continuing resolution, which is the resolution that funds the government only for 6 weeks or 10 weeks that the Senate has passed. We don't have to have any amendments or anything. We can do that today--or we can at least do it tomorrow--and all these people will be back to work and we can end these stories of fear and pain that are affecting our families and the businesses that they work for. There has been a lot of yelling about attaching conditions to the continuing resolution. We have been voting on these really literally for weeks now. I am not going to add my voice to those, but I will just say that it seems that those have run their course. None of them has gotten anywhere. I myself supported some of these conditions. In fact, earlier this year, I voted to delay the individual mandate to match the business mandate. That wasn't something that was popular in my party. I voted for that. But in the context of this continuing resolution, I supported the repeal of the medical device tax. It happens also to be one of my major legislative priorities. I think that is a bad way to fund any part of the government. That got some Democratic votes, but didn't get any support in the Senate. Today, we got an email from the majority leader who said that ``House Republicans believe it is critical we continue to engage and offer meaningful solutions for the American people,'' which is why he said, on a bipartisan basis with a total of 57 different Democrats voting with us, we have passed bills to reopen the NIH, ensure that the National Guard and Reservists are paid, fund veterans benefits, reopen our national parks, and allow the District of Columbia to expend their local funds. I voted for all these too. Most of my party didn't. But I thought we had one chance to open these areas up to make sure that they go back to work. It is not the best budgeting thing. I voted for them. But the point is they went nowhere. The Senate will not approve them. If the Senate approved them, the President wouldn't sign them. So it is time to recognize that we have reached the end of this road and this is not getting us anywhere. We know that these things won't sell, we know that they won't get support in the Senate, and it is time to move on to a basic continuing resolution without amendment. Now, I have heard people say--some of my colleagues on the other side--say: Well, we need to get something. I just point out that if you look at the numbers--and we all talk extensively about the need in general to control spending and lower our debt--the Senate approved spending until November at the Republican level. President Obama's budget proposal was for $1.2 trillion. The Senate's budget was for $1.06 trillion, or about $2 trillion less. And the Senate approved a spending level of the continuing resolution at an annual rate of $986 billion. That is a cut of $72 billion from the Senate budget--that is 7 percent less than the Senate had proposed--and $217 billion less than the President's proposed budget, 18 percent. So to say that you needed to get something, I think certainly at this point the Republicans have won the war over discretionary spending. Now, that is not a war that people are going to give up on. But in the continuing resolution, which we are asking to vote on, have a chance to vote on in the House, the Republicans number was the number used. At this time, I would like to yield to my colleague from the State of Washington, Derek Kilmer, who serves with me on the Armed Services Committee and also on the Science, Space, and Technology Committee.

Mr. PETERS of California. I thank the gentleman. You talked about how we define ``success.'' I know you and I have spoken, as have many Members, about how we can get away with what we call ``success'' here. So what happens--and what has happened in this context, too--is that a number of things will be proposed, and they won't go anywhere. Then what will happen is a bunch of finger-pointing will come after: well, I proposed this, and I voted for it and I voted against it. Imagine if you were a CEO of a company that made a product and that you said, I created a great product, and I think you'll really like it. It sounds great to the CEO, and the CEO says, Oh, that sounds terrific. How many did you sell? I didn't sell any, but they really should buy it. That's what Congress is doing. That's kind of how we define ``success'' around here: well, I stuck them with a good bill even though no one's going to vote for it. Of course, in business or in your family, you'd actually have to listen to what the other side wanted if you wanted to reach a result that was a success. That's what ``success'' would be, and I thank you for pointing that out. I would also say, on No Budget, No Pay, which I also supported, it was the concept that, if Congress doesn't do its job, we shouldn't get a paycheck. We were proud that day when we worked together with our Republican colleagues, and we passed No Budget, No Pay. We forced the Senate, controlled by Democrats, to pass the first budget that they passed in 4 years. That's all well and good unless we actually talk together. I saw a picture this week of Mr. Cantor and some of his colleagues waiting at a table for people to come have a conference. We've been waiting for that all year on this budget, and we came in good faith and tried to pass No Budget, No Pay. Wouldn't it be good if we could use this time or if we could use the next few weeks to sit down and actually hammer out a budget through that process, and this is the time to do it. Before I turn it over to another colleague, I'll just remind my colleagues of the report from The Washington Post last December regarding President Obama's budget proposal back then, which said that, for the first time, he is formally proposing to trim Social Security benefits--a GOP demand that is anathema to many Democrats; that he is also offering to make meaningful reductions in Medicare benefits, including higher premiums for couples making more than $170,000 a year; and that he visited each of the caucuses earlier this year and told the House Democrats, by the way, you can't take $3 out of Medicare for every dollar you put in. He said that our corporate tax rates were too high for our companies to compete internationally. This has been going on all year, ladies and gentlemen, with no effort to negotiate at all because it's the leadership of the Speaker here who won't appoint conferees because, apparently, they're concerned about getting it. So we waited until this moment of crisis to talk about something that you and I have been waiting for all year. With that, I would like to yield some time to my colleague from New Hampshire (Ms. Kuster).

Mr. PETERS of California. I thank the gentlelady from New Hampshire. Again, you're absolutely right. All we have to do to get this started again is to put the Senate resolution before this House. We could vote on that tomorrow, and the government would be open immediately thereafter. I think obviously that's what we would all like to do. I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Murphy).

Mr. PETERS of California. I thank the gentleman from Florida. I guess it is cold comfort to Joshua to hear that the House has been voting on these piecemeal approaches. I'm not saying that they were ill-motivated. Many of us supported them, but they're not working. It is time for us to learn the lesson, I believe, and I agree with you. Put the Senate resolution on the floor and open this government back up, and we can do our work in Congress that we were sent to do and we were paid to do without stopping the government. I think those comments were very well put, and I thank the gentleman. The other thing we heard about, in addition to we need to get something or we need to sit down and talk, is the idea that we have to repeal or do away with the health care law. I would just say this about being a freshman. We weren't here for these votes. None of us cast a vote either way on the Affordable Care Act or ObamaCare, but we heard a lot of questions about it and we took those questions very seriously. Most of us said we should try to fix them, but we're also realistic. We've seen that the health care law was passed by Congress a few years ago, signed by the President; it was okayed by the Supreme Court, and it survived a number of additional repeal votes here in the House of Representatives. It appears that it's here to be with us to stay. It's been rolling out with mixed reports this week, but I think in many places people are finding hope that they can get affordable health care. Clearly, we have more work to do, and I stand here willing to help fix the Affordable Care Act to the extent we need it. I've expressed my own concern about the medical device tax. I think that's something that should be repealed. There are others, like the Cadillac tax. I think we should provide new incentives for wellness. I think we should get out of the way of technology and encourage technology as an approach to lower costs. I'm willing to get to work on that. That law took a long time to pass. It was very contentious. Those problems won't be solved to the satisfaction of the Congress or to the completion of the task within the time we're talking about while shutting the government down, so let's get to work and not hold the government up for that. My final observation about this shutdown is that I feel I'm reminded of when I practiced law and I tried cases. I liked having a case with a good lawyer on the other side, because a good lawyer knew where he or she was going, and you could tell kind of what the strategy was and where you were going to end up. I feel, in this case, like I'm trying a case against a lawyer who is inexperienced or doesn't know what he's doing in the sense that I can't figure out where he's going. I'm hoping that if there is some resolution that can happen, we would love to be a part of it. I think it starts with passing the continuing resolution that the Senate passed and getting this government open right now. I would like to close with a few comments on the other issue that we haven't gotten to, but I think it concerns me greatly. That's the debt ceiling. It's one thing to argue over the continuing resolution--we've been talking about that--and shutting down the government. That's a bad thing. It's something I hope we'll end soon. As I said before, it's something that's entirely within our power to do without the help of the Senate or the President. We just vote for that resolution that the Senate passed, and the government would be open tomorrow. I hear talk about the debt ceiling as though it's the same thing. It is not. The debt ceiling is a dangerous tactic for negotiation. It's bad business, it's bad economics, and it's bad government. First, I'd start by talking about what it's like to do business in this way, and it occurs to me that my parents must be asking themselves about the people who would play with the debt ceiling, Who raised these people? What we're doing here with the debt ceiling, talking about not paying our debts, it's like getting the credit card bill, opening it up and seeing how much you bought, and deciding at that point, Well, no, I've got to control spending. I don't want to pay this. That's too late to have the discussion. I remember my parents--my father is a minister. My mom stayed home, worked part time to help us with college. I have vivid memories of them laying out the bills on the dining room table to make sure they could figure out their cash flow, how they were going to pay each bill, what day of the month each bill was due. They made every payment because they always taught me about making sure you kept good credit. We know now about credit scores and how important it is to be on time, and families all over the country understand that kind of approach. For us to take this approach that we're not going to pay the debts that we've incurred is just the wrong way to do business, and it's terrible economics. The Treasury reported this week: With the government likely to exhaust its cash reserves around October 17, the Treasury said being forced into nonpayment of any of its obligations--and in particular, its debt--would spark turmoil in the financial markets and possibly send the country back to recession as deep as that of 2008 and 2009. We know we've been coming out of that, but very slowly. We don't want to go back there. In the event that a debt limit impasse were to lead to a default, it could have a catastrophic effect not just on financial markets but also on job creation, consumer spending, and economic growth. Credit markets could freeze, the value of the dollar could plummet, U.S. interest rates could skyrocket, the negative spillovers could reverberate around the world, and there might be a financial crisis and recession that could echo the events of 2008 or worse. This is not some political statement. This is what we're hearing from The Wall Street Journal, from the banking community, from the financial sector. They're saying stay away from this. CNNMoney said: Forget the current government shutdown. Economists say it's the upcoming debt ceiling impasse that could plunge the Nation into a recession. About half of the 22 economists surveyed by CNNMoney say a recession will be unavoidable if Congress fails to raise the Nation's debt ceiling before the Treasury runs out of cash later this month. Ladies and gentlemen, let's not get to that point. Mr. Speaker, we cannot mess with the debt ceiling. The government shutdown is bad enough. We're kind of playing around the edges. I urge that we put the Senate resolution before the House so we can vote on it and open this government tomorrow. Let us not touch, let us not play with the notion, let us not suggest to anyone that America won't pay the debts it's incurred. Finally, from an article called ``After the Shutdown'' posted by James Surowiecki, I just offer this--he is speaking in partisan terms, but anyone who thinks this I think it applies to: This is why the Republican approach to the debt ceiling is not, as people like Zeke J. Miller of Time have argued, the kind of hostage-taking that's a ``standard way of doing business in Washington.'' This is really an attempt to remake the legislative process itself and to do so by threatening to do something--default--that no one, including the people making the threat, believes to be in the best interest of the United States. We can't be sure of exactly what would happen if the U.S. stopped paying its bills, but at the very least it would lead to havoc in the bond market and the financial system (which depends on U.S. treasuries as risk-free collateral), higher interest rates, and an immediate hit to economic growth. It's not a road that anyone should want to go down. Mr. Speaker, in my view, it is not a road we should even be considering going down. As bad as the continuing resolution is and the fight over the shutdown, I know that just behind us is a much more dangerous prospect, and I want to warn of that. Finally, I suggest to folks that I have offered two bills that would provide an alternative and would help us deal with the national debt. They would work very simply. When debt was declining as a percentage of the economy, which means we have it under control, the debt ceiling would adjust without a vote, payments would go out; and when debt started to increase as a percentage of the economy, which means we're not having it under control--we all understand that long-term debt can't continue to rise as a percentage of the economy without hurting our economic future. In that case, we need a mechanism to do something more than just yell at each other and call each other names, which I know the freshmen that were with me tonight are still amazed that that's what happens here, but that's what happens way too often. We need a mechanism to force a discussion of really how to manage the debt. And our bill would provide that, if we are in the condition where debt's rising as a percentage of GDP and the President and the leaders of Congress didn't do anything about it, which is a condition we find ourselves in today, then individual Members, Mr. Speaker, would be able to propose their own measures without the blessing of leadership but with the sponsorship of only 50 of their colleagues to force a discussion on how to manage that debt and get it under control. Now that's just one idea. But at this point, I think it's the only idea on the table to actually avoid this in a constructive way. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chance to offer some thoughts on these issues with my colleagues. And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PETERS of California

Mr. PETERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize San Diego's LGBT Pride Parade and Festival that will take place this weekend. Messages of diversity and inclusiveness are at the heart of the LGBT community. I'm proud to stand with San Diego's LGBT community and LGBT men and women across the country in commemorating their history and working for their future success. From that iconic night at Stonewall to Harvey Milk to the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell to the overturning of DOMA and Prop 8, we've experienced uneven but unmistakable progress toward equality. As we recognize and celebrate our LGBT family and friends, we must also do the right thing and pass a trans-inclusive Employment Nondiscrimination Act so that all Americans are safe from the worry of being fired because their employers disagree with who they are and who they love. This weekend, as San Diego celebrates Pride, I'm honored to stand with friends and colleagues to honor the contributions of LGBT Americans in San Diego and across the country.

Mr. PETERS of California

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

Mr. PETERS of California. Madam Chair, 2 years ago, on September 8, 2011, San Diego and much of southern California, Arizona, and parts of Mexico suffered a huge electric power failure. This was the biggest electric power failure in the history of California. Millions of people were left without electricity when a 500-kilovolt high-voltage transmission line from Arizona to California failed, knocking a major nuclear power plant offline. The electricity outage led to school and business closures, flight cancellations, suspended water service, and dark traffic lights. And when the power goes out, it's not just our lights that are affected. In the heat without air-conditioning, we're putting the health of our seniors and vulnerable populations at risk of health failures. So the risks to public safety and health increase, and economic disruptions can be hard to recover from. We are putting greater load on our grid each day, and the grid faces also threats to its cybersecurity. In addition, we've seen extreme weather events wreak havoc on the grid. DOE is making great strides to strengthen our grid and make it more resilient to all threats, and we need to protect this critical infrastructure. The Appropriations Committee has recommended $80 million for electricity delivery and energy reliability, which is a cut of $32.49 million from FY '13 levels. My amendment would increase electric delivery and energy reliability by $10 million, with an equal offset reduction to the DOE's Departmental Administration account. This increase will strengthen the electric grid and provide greater power reliability for all Americans. And the amendment would support the research and technology to improve grid strength and reliability. These are more important investments than this particular Departmental Administration account. This is spending reduction in the long run. The cost of energy outages are much greater than what we put in to modernizing and strengthening the grid. Every dollar that we put towards making our infrastructure more resilient yields $4 in future savings. When power goes out, there are huge economic costs. Our modern world can't function and perform business transactions without electricity, and we need to ensure that the power's there. If it goes out, we need to make sure that it gets back on quickly. A better grid will save taxpayers money. A better, smarter, more modern grid will lead to fewer outages, getting power back faster, and savings in costs. Madam Chair, I ask for the support of my colleagues, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PETERS of California. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. PETERS of California

Mr. PETERS of California. Mr. Speaker, today on the 30th anniversary of Dr. Sally Ride's historic journey into space, I am introducing the Sally K. Ride Congressional Gold Medal Act of 2013 because of what Dr. Ride meant to this country as a pioneer. Dr. Ride was the first American woman to fly into space. Flying on the seventh space shuttle flight, which was launched on June 18, 1983, she helped deploy two communications satellites including piloting the shuttle's robotic arm to capture a satellite for the first time. Dr. Ride's flight into space came at a time when women in the United States were shattering the glass ceiling becoming leaders in science and math. Dr. Ride's extraordinary courage and pioneering spirit paved the way for future female astronauts. Her ride to space was an inspiration for young women to dream. As Gloria Steinem wrote at the time, ``millions of little girls are going to sit by their television sets and see they can be astronauts, heroes, explorers and scientists.'' As the Associate Administrator for the Shuttle Program, Lieutenant General James Abrahamson stated in 1983, the next ``milestone'' would be ``when ladies go into space and nobody notices, they just take it for granted.'' Thirty years after Sally Ride's historic flight we know that to be true. What made Dr. Ride truly extraordinary was her work after 1983 to ensure that the children of our country would be able to follow in her footsteps and create their own legacies. After flying into space one more time in 1984, serving on the Rogers Commission investigating the Challenger disaster, and leading NASA's long range and strategic planning efforts, Dr. Ride left NASA in 1987. She received numerous awards including Jefferson Award for Public Service, the von Braun Award, the Lindbergh Eagle and the NCAA's Theodore Roosevelt Award. She has also twice been awarded the NASA Space Flight Medal. Dr. Ride was also inducted into the National Women's Hall of Fame and the Astronaut Hall of Fame. She became a Professor of Physics and Director of the California Space Institute at the University of California, San Diego. While teaching college students, she also endeavored to reach out to young children. Dr. Ride and her life-partner Tam O'Shaughnessy co- wrote six children's books which focused on encouraging children to study science. Dr. Ride also founded EarthKAM (Earth Knowledge Acquired by Middle school students) in 1995, a NASA educational outreach program using cameras onboard the Shuttle and now the International Space Station to enable students, teachers, and the public to learn about Earth from the unique perspective of space. In 2001, she founded a company with the goal of creating entertaining science programs and publications for elementary and middle school students with a focus on girls. As we look to honor Dr. Ride, it is important to note that Dr. Ride never let her symbolic accomplishments overshadow the importance of her life's work pushing our country to explore and continuing to lead the charge of getting more women into the sciences. Commenting on her inspiring flight in 1983, Dr. Ride stated, ``It's too bad this is such a big deal. It's too bad our society isn't further along.'' This Medal is meant to serve both as a testament to the extraordinary American that Dr. Sally Ride was and as a reminder that we must protect her legacy by being forever vigilant to ensure that future Sally Rides are able to pursue their dreams. The Navy recently named the next ocean-class auxiliary general oceanographic research ship after her to honor her legacy. As Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus said, ``Sally Ride's career was one of firsts and will inspire generations to come.'' In closing, I believe that awarding this congressional gold medal will be a fitting, though long overdue, recognition by Congress of all Dr. Ride contributed to our great nation.

Mr. PETERS of California

Mr. PETERS of California. Mr. Speaker, today we're discussing a bill that's divisive, will never become law, and is an affront to women's health. As a longtime advocate for a woman's right to choose and the idea that women and their doctors should be making personal health decisions, not politicians, I stand in strong opposition. This 20-week abortion ban is a harmful measure that jeopardizes a woman's health and her ability to have a family in the future by denying her access to an abortion even if she experiences severe, dangerous health complications as a result of a pregnancy. In a potentially life-threatening situation, a woman and her doctor deserve to have every medical option available to them. This bill is clearly unconstitutional and an attempt to substitute politicians' judgment for that of doctors and their patients as they make their difficult, personal medical decisions. Instead of bringing bills to the floor that address the major issues facing our country right now, the Speaker and majority leader have brought another bill to a vote that is much more about political posturing than helping America's economy or students. I ask the leadership of the House, how many jobs does this bill create? Does this bill help balance our budget? How many student loans will be kept at a low rate by passing this bill?

Mr. PETERS of California

Mr. PETERS of California. Mr. Speaker, last year, I ran for Congress on No Budget, No Pay: the concept that if Congress does not pass a budget and do its job, we should not be paid. In so doing, I joined my Republican colleagues here in the House in being critical of the Democrats in the Senate who had not passed a budget for 4 years. As a result of our actions, we forced the Senate to pass their budget, and we in the House have passed our own. Now, according to our rules and centuries of practice, we are supposed to have a conference to reconcile the Senate and House budgets so we can approve a compromise and forward a congressional budget to the President for his signature. When I go home, I hear a sense of urgency from San Diegans about balancing the budget and ending the sequester. But too many in Washington, D.C., who are well paid and comfortable seem to care more about politics than about helping the American families and businesses that are struggling. Now is the time to honor the American people by doing our jobs. Mr. Speaker, please appoint conferees now so we can pass a Federal budget and get on with our work.

Mr. PETERS of California

Mr. PETERS of California. I rise today as chair of the Climate Task Force in the House Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition. June 1 marked the start of hurricane season, and this is a reminder that we must start planning ahead for extreme weather that we now face regularly, while also recognizing the cost of inaction. Taxpayers spent $136 billion on disaster relief in just the last 2 years. However, FEMA estimates that every $1 spent on planning, preparation, and prevention yields the Nation $4 in future benefits. We are facing harsher droughts, deadlier heat waves, more severe storms, and, in San Diego, increasingly intense wildfires. In 2012 alone, wildfires burned 9.2 million acres in the United States, an area larger than the States of Delaware, Rhode Island, and Connecticut combined. There's no clear national plan for how to make our society more resilient in the face of extreme weather. This is unacceptable. We deserve better. Developing a planning structure for community resiliency is necessary. It will reduce Federal spending, save lives, and it's what Washington could do more of. We must act now.

Mr. PETERS of California

Mr. PETERS of California. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 164, I inserted card and voted--light turned green but did not register. On this vote, I would have voted ``yea.''