Scott Peters

Mr. PETERS

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

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, just a few weeks before I was sworn into office, a deranged gunman entered Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut and murdered 20 young children and 6 school employees. What was the response of this Congress to make sure that never happened again? Nothing. Despite an overwhelming amount of support across the country for universal background checks, and bipartisan legislation to implement them, this Congress did nothing. Across my district in San Diego, moms, dads, college students, seniors have all been calling on us to take action that will keep our children and our community safe. They are angry at our inability to act, and I share their anger. We should pass the bipartisan Thompson-King bill on background checks, and we should do it today. That would be a good start to addressing this devastating problem. It is time to do something.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, before I entered public service, I practiced environmental law for 15 years in large firms, in a government office, and in my own firm. Through that experience, I learned firsthand of the frustration that many businesses and local governments face when they try to navigate overly complex and underly responsive permit processes. I also know from experience that time is money, and often a business seeking a permit is paying dearly to hold a property or to service a loan while it waits for that permit to be issued. That is why I have often said that for applicants, ``no'' is the second best answer. Tell us ``no'' or tell us how, but don't string us along. That is why I appreciate the spirit of the RAPID Act. I don't think it is the perfect answer. Frankly, I don't think it will become law. I am working on some other streamlining strategies that I think are superior and might have the bipartisan support that both would get them through this Chamber and the Senate and get them signed into law by President Obama. As I told my colleagues on the Committee on the Judiciary, I will vote for the RAPID Act if Congress adopts my amendment and does not pass restrictions on considering the role of greenhouse gasses and climate change on our environment. My amendment would simply eliminate subsection (k) of the bill, a section that explicitly prohibits any consideration of the social cost of carbon. For too long we have heard that we have to choose between a prosperous economy and a clean environment. San Diegans and people around the country know that is a false choice. We can and we must provide economic opportunity and clean air and clean water for future generations. That means providing businesses and communities with regulatory certainty to help them plan and invest in the future, and it also means that we use this streamlined process, with tight and reliable deadlines, to analyze the economic, environmental, and social costs of carbon dioxide emissions. As highlighted in former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg's bipartisan Risky Business report, accounting for the social cost of carbon and preparing for climate change is just smart business practice. The costs of carbon include financial losses from sea level rise. If we continue on our current path of carbon emissions, by 2050, between 66 and 106 billion dollars worth of existing coastal property will likely be below sea level nationwide. Eighty-seven percent of all Californians live in coastal counties, and 80 percent of the State's GDP is derived from those counties. Climate affects energy supply costs. Greenhouse gas-driven changes in temperature, catalyzed by burning fossil fuels, would require us to build new power generation facilities to help cool homes and businesses that Risky Business estimates will cost residential and commercial ratepayers as much as $12 billion a year. That is $12 billion that could be used by families to put their kids through school or buy a home, or by businesses to hire more employees. Climate affects the cost of national defense. In 2014, the Pentagon issued a report on the security risks associated with profound changes to global climate and the environment. The report found that climate change poses an immediate threat to national security. That will put additional upward pressure on our already-stressed defense budget. Climate affects agriculture, water supply, fire preparedness. In California, the largest agriculture producing State in the country, we are in the fourth year of what has been one of the worst droughts in recorded history. Communities across the State are facing water shortages. Dry conditions have extended our fire season to be nearly a year-round concern. Given the stakes associated with carbon emissions on coastal property, energy, defense, our food supply, fires, and our quality of life, shouldn't we at least understand the long-term costs associated with the project? This bill could hold the line on responsiveness and provide long-term certainty to businesses without burying our collective heads in the sand on the costs of carbon, one of the main environmental impacts this environmental law must confront. By stripping out subsection (k) and allowing us to consider the real costs of carbon on our economy, my amendment rejects the false choice between a prosperous economy and a healthy climate. We can and we must have both. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, I have two responses. One, this is not President Obama's agenda. This is the agenda of a bipartisan report, Risky Business, the Department of Defense, and a number of other people who have recognized this is a real problem we have to confront. Second, I would say to the gentleman: Let the science work itself out through the process. There is plenty of science that is questioned in the NEPA process. There is no other point at which this body has prevented a discussion of any content except here. Let the process work it out. I will be with you on your timelines. We will get businesses the certainty that they deserve. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. I want to thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to thank Congresswoman Sinema and Congressman Benishek for their leadership on this issue, which is also of prime interest to me, this epidemic of suicide in our veteran community. Mr. Speaker, San Diego has the third largest population of veterans in the country, more than 235,000. One of the most important jobs we have here in Congress is to honor their service by keeping our promises to them. September is Suicide Prevention Month, a time to focus on ending the scourge of veteran suicide that has hurt families and communities across the country. Combating suicide takes the full spectrum of services, including deployment, education, drug and alcohol abuse treatment, and ending the stigma around mental health. In San Diego, I am pleased to say, the nonprofit sector has really stepped up. We have been at the forefront of finding innovative ways to approach veteran suicide by providing services and developing cohesion in the local veteran community that came together after the Vietnam war to increase collaboration among government, private groups, and community partners. San Diego is the home of, in my district, 0800, which is an organization doing innovative work to assist easing the transition between Active Duty and civilian life. It is a community-based nonprofit that takes the existing service structure, works with the servicemembers before they leave the military to get them set, and provides the case management after they return to the civilian world to ensure that the benefits and services that veterans have earned are provided to them. Another organization, the Three Wise Men Foundation, founded by combat veteran Nathan Fletcher, utilizes community engagement and workout trainings to help veterans who were in combat and have struggled to reintegrate after coming home. There is a powerful article by Dave Phillips that The New York Times highlighted this weekend about how many veterans are turning to each other to survive. To quote that article: ``Feeling abandoned, members of the battalion have turned to a survival strategy they learned at war: depending on one another.'' We have all heard the devastating statistics of veteran suicides in the country, but thus far, the response has failed to properly address the dire situation, and we have a responsibility here in Congress to do much more than we have. The statistics don't tell the heart-wrenching stories that so many of us have heard from parents, spouses, and the loved ones of the veteran who has taken his or her own life. One such couple that Congresswoman Sinema and I know, and I have been honored to work with, is Dr. Howard and Jean Somers, who, after losing their son, Daniel, to suicide, have become tireless advocates to fix and reform the broken healthcare system at the Department of Veterans Affairs. We know that bipartisan reforms to the VA can make a difference. The Clay Hunt Act showed us that and garnered a new generation of mental health and suicide prevention services at the VA, and the Veterans Choice Act will bring accountability to a system wrought with oversight and leadership challenges, allowing for faster service closer to the veteran in need. But fixing an inefficient VA requires more than just increased funding. It requires real changes to get veterans care in new and flexible ways. We need to allow the VA to better use innovative technologies, like wireless medicine, that allow veterans access to care from the comfort of their homes, which can save lives and decrease costs to taxpayers. We need to break the stigma around mental health, particularly post- traumatic stress. The service-connected injury needs to be treated with the same gravity and respect as the physical injury that so many of our valiant warfighters have battled. So thank you again, Congresswoman Sinema and Congressman Benishek, for your consistent advocacy on reforming the VA and on ending the tragedy of veteran suicide. We have much more work to do, and I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to work with you on it.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, unless we act soon, our government's functions will cease in 10 days. At the end of October, transportation and highway constructions will halt. Instead, Congress can do the right thing to create jobs for millions of Americans across this country. This summer, the regular process for funding the government broke down because the majority couldn't figure out its stance on the Confederate flag. Today, partisan extremists are threatening another shutdown over women's health care that would be a self-inflicted hit to our economy. We know that shutting down the government would be devastating for our economy. Standard & Poor's estimated that the 2013 shutdown cost our economy $24 billion in economic activity; so instead of flirting with the government shutdown disaster, we should be investing in our future. Twice this summer, Congress did the bare minimum by passing multiple, short-term extensions to the highway trust fund, mostly through accounting gimmicks. Across the board, from workers organizations to business groups, there is opposition to a government shutdown and support for long-term investments in infrastructure. We should get to work, making it easier for Americans to grow their businesses and to create high-quality jobs instead of punishing our infrastructure, our military, and our economy with foolish partisanship.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, across the West and particularly in California, we are in the fourth year of a prolonged drought that is placing us at increased risk for wildfires. The underlying bill would harm not just one community or industrial sector, but would undercut years of existing water policy and put communities like mine in San Diego in more danger. The images of depleted reservoirs, lakes, and streams drying up abound, with millions of dead trees littering our forests. As The New York Times reported just yesterday: ``For those who know fire, fuel is now all they see.'' We are in the midst of what we expect to be a long and harsh wildfire season. Just since January 1, California fire officials have responded to more than 3,300 wildfires, which is a thousand more than the average from the last 5 years. The lake fire that started just a month ago has consumed an area of national forest roughly the size of San Francisco, and the dozens of wildfires that erupted in San Diego last May burned thousands of acres and destroyed 65 homes. Projections show that the cost of fighting wildfires this year could reach up to $2.1 billion, far above the roughly $450 million spent annually in the 1990s. It is not just money at stake. Two of the most deadly wildfires in California history, the Witch and Cedar fires occurred in San Diego and killed 17 people. This is also a matter of life and death. This bill does not make it rain; no one can do that. It simply undermines the State of California's water policies to move water away from one set of communities and into different ones. The motion to recommit requires that, as we make changes to Western water allocations, we ensure there is enough water in reservoirs, lakes, and community supplies to make sure that wildfires can be fought when they occur, which they certainly will. It also ensures that we honor the existing tribal water rights and protect the health of those communities. I urge my colleagues to support this motion to recommit and to oppose the underlying legislation.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Today, I rise to urge passage of the Housing Assistance Efficiency Act, a bill that I introduced earlier this year. As the ranking member said, an identical version of this legislation passed the House by voice vote last December. Many laws are intended to ensure efficiency in Federal agencies but often have unintended consequences, preventing agencies from serving the public and costing taxpayers money. Currently, the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Continuum of Care Program is forced to spend too much time fulfilling administrative obligations, instead of helping individuals and families transition out of homelessness and putting them on a path to independent living. This legislation will reduce government inefficiency and make it easier for Americans struggling to find a foothold to access the already existing resources available to them. Twice each fiscal year, HUD has to reallocate unused or returned funds in the Emergency Solutions Grants Program. Because funds are almost never unused or returned under this program, the reallocation of funds takes a lot of time and human capital to complete but with little end purpose. It is administratively more efficient to reallocate funds only once per year. This frees up HUD employees to provide more human resources toward better providing service to constituents. We shouldn't saddle HUD with more administrative work that isn't helping anyone. In addition to mandatory fund allocations, HUD faces a mountain of paperwork as it tries to administer that important system used by more than 3 million Americans each year. Prior to 2009, private nonprofits could administer rental assistance through HUD's Continuum of Care. Nonprofits are uniquely positioned to handle the needs of those seeking rental assistance, using expertise in individual communities of vulnerable populations to serve the clients where they are. The HEARTH Act, however, muddled rental assistance laws, and private nonprofits were left off the list of entities allowed to administer rental assistance. Currently, only States, local government units, or public housing agencies can dispense this housing assistance, although nonprofits have substantial experience and the ability to reach vulnerable populations that is often unavailable to government programs. Private nonprofits can still execute other homelessness programs, but they have to go through public housing agencies or another layer of bureaucracy to get rental assistance to their clients or to the landlord. This creates more bureaucratic burdens when individuals and families really need the help quickly to stay in their homes. Passing this bill would remedy both these problems, make HUD a more efficient agency, and get homelessness assistance to those who need it more quickly. This is particularly important in San Diego, where access to affordable housing has been continually one of our region's biggest obstacles and where we have the third largest homeless population in the country. By passing today's bill, we can help HUD be more efficient and ensure that community experts and nonprofits are not hamstrung by Federal inaction. In their statement supporting this legislation, the San Diego Housing Federation said: ``This bill removes barriers to helping get important resources to those who need it most.'' Mr. Speaker, that is what it is all about. I urge my colleagues to help pass this legislation and take substantive action to improve government efficiency and help fight chronic homelessness in our country.

Mr. PETERS

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

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would not allow any funds to enforce section 435 of this bill, which is another harmful policy rider that limits the ability of our environmental agencies to take action to improve public health and fight the root causes of climate change. This section blocks the EPA's ongoing efforts to regulate hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs, which is the wrong approach. HFCs are factory-made gases used in air conditioning and refrigeration and are up to 10,000 times more potent than carbon dioxide. This potency has led to HFCs being referred to as a superpollutant. Unless we act now, United States emissions are expected to double by 2020 and triple by 2030. While not as abundant as carbon dioxide, superpollutants, also known as short-lived climate pollutants--including HFCs, methane, and black carbon--have contributed up to 40 percent of observed global warming. By limiting the EPA's authority under the Clean Water Act to propose, finalize, or enforce any regulation or guidance regarding HFCs, we undercut their ability to protect public health and demonstrate American leadership in emission reductions. The EPA's Significant New Alternatives Policy Program, or SNAP, requires us to evaluate substitutes for superpollutants like HFCs that are harming public health and our environment. Through SNAP, we can ensure a more smooth transition to safer alternatives for our country's industrial sector. Within the last week, EPA finalized a new rule on HFCs that the Environmental Investigation Agency estimates will avoid superpollutant emissions equal to the annual greenhouse gas emissions of more than 21 million cars by 2030. It will allow heavy users of HFCs, including supermarkets, which are the largest source of HFC emissions, to continue developing cleaner alternatives. As we continue international negotiations to phase down HFCs, the United States should be a leader in reducing the use of HFCs and other superpollutants. The standard set by EPA will drive U.S. and international innovation and 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. American industry has already begun creating alternatives that both have a lower emissions profile and are more energy efficient than current HFCs, and last September, we saw major companies--including Coca-Cola, Carrier, DuPont, Honeywell, PepsiCo, and other industry leaders--commit to voluntarily reducing harmful HFC emissions. My amendment simply bars funding to enforce section 435 of this bill so we can instead continue with existing rules and move our country's global leadership in finding innovative solutions to reducing emissions forward. We should not be handcuffing the important work being done at EPA to reduce superpollutants. I ask my colleagues to support the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much the constructive comments by my colleague, the gentleman from California. I would just suggest this is not the way to deal with these issues, but rather to address them via policy approach. Section 435 of this bill will just take out the legs from all work we would do on HFCs and superpollutants, and it is just too broad a brush to paint with. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PETERS

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

Mr. PETERS. Madam Chair, no American should be fired, denied a job or a place to live for being who they are or because of whom they love. Every American deserves to be treated equally and with dignity. My amendment would make a simple change to the text of the bill but make an important difference in the lives of LGBT Americans across the country. President Obama signed an executive order in July 2014 to prohibit Federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity against their employees or those seeking employment. This amendment would affirm that order by ensuring that no funds in the bill are used to conflict with the President's rule. It would demonstrate to the American people that Congress supports fairness and equality for all. Today, only 18 States and the District of Columbia have nondiscrimination protections for LGBT communities in sexual orientation and gender identity in both employment and housing. That means that in a number of States an LGBT individual can get married in the morning and fired from his or her job or denied an application in the afternoon for no other reason than the change in marital status. That is unacceptable. As a country that believes in equality for all people, we must do better. June is Pride Month, and in cities and towns across the country, millions of Americans will celebrate the vibrant diversity of the LGBT communities who are enriching our society. As we look forward toward full nondiscrimination, we can help provide at least a small window of equality for all members of the LGBT community by passing this amendment. I urge my colleagues to stand on the side of equality and against discrimination and support this amendment. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

Mr. PETERS. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PETERS

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

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

Mr. PETERS. I am opposed.

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill, which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will proceed immediately to final passage, as amended. Mr. Speaker, preserving our beaches and bays and our coastal communities for future generations has to be a bipartisan endeavor. Congress passed landmark fisheries legislation in 1976 and reauthorized it in 1996 and 2006 with broad support from both parties. Unfortunately, today's bill is a partisan one that will undermine our four-decade history of responsible and successful fisheries management. It creates loopholes and lessens transparency and accountability, which can only harm our coastal communities. My amendment today is simple: give communities and regional experts at fishery management councils input, and increase the ability of local agencies to hold polluters more accountable after a spill. Just a few weeks ago, on the California coast north of Santa Barbara, a pipeline ruptured beneath a coastal cliff, spilling 105,000 gallons of crude oil onto the beach and tidelands and into the Pacific Ocean. Despite rapid cleanup efforts from environmental officials and volunteers from across the State, the leak killed abundant marine life, including lobsters, seals, kelp bass, and local fish populations. It also forced the closure of local State beaches during the Memorial Day weekend, depriving local businesses of revenue from visitors coming to enjoy the scenic California coast. Now, the short-term harm has been evident, but the long-term damage to the marine life, coastal ecosystems, and biodiversity, including fisheries and food stocks that are part of the region's economy, that damage won't be known for some time. What is clear is that coastal communities deal with the harm from a spill long after the initial cleanup ends, and they deserve greater oversight over those who caused the damage. My amendment addresses this issue in three ways: first, it directs the regional fishery management council to conduct a full environmental assessment of the spill; second, it requires the responsible party to pay for any pollution cleanup and restoration of the harmed fishers, and to provide compensation for economic and job losses due to the spill; and third, it protects public safety and food quality by requiring that polluters pay for testing of toxins in fish and in local waters to help fishermen determine the safest areas for fishing. These provisions are necessary because, as we have seen from past cleanups, the long-term direct and indirect environmental damage is not always immediately apparent, particularly on fish and wildlife populations and marine biodiversity. This is our experience. For example, despite massive cleanup efforts following the infamous Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989, a 2007 study conducted by NOAA found that 26,000 gallons of oil from the Exxon Valdez were still trapped in the sand along the shoreline of Alaska. Those thousands of gallons of oil that remain decades later continue to damage fragile marine ecosystems and wildlife habitat and breeding grounds. That 1989 spill caused more than $300 million in economic harm to more than 32,000 Alaskans whose livelihoods depended on commercial fishing in that region. And in Santa Barbara, where last month's spill occurred, tourism, both on- and offshore, are central to the regional economy and will undoubtedly be harmed by this pollution. Mr. Speaker, I represent San Diego, California, where the marine industry, the maritime industry, and our large natural harbor are key to the region's tourism economy which supports 158,000 local jobs and $18.3 billion in economic impact. A spill like this could devastate our local economy and irreparably harm our delicate ecosystem. It is imperative that Congress hold responsible parties accountable in the case of a destructive oil spill. We should all agree that supporting coastal communities and the businesses that depend on rivers, bays, lakes, beaches, and oceans deserve support and shouldn't be forced to pay for the mistakes of polluters. Join me in supporting our local economies, protecting our coastal environments, ensuring public safety for consumers, and setting a higher standard for accountability. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for this motion to recommit, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, every May we celebrate Asian Pacific American Heritage Month, a time to commemorate the significant contributions of the AAPI communities to our country. This year, I am honored to recognize one of San Diego's community leaders, Dr. Allen Chan. Dr. Chan was born in Hong Kong, and immigrated to the United States more than 40 years ago. He was a charter president of the San Diego United Lions Club, is an accomplished chiropractor, and is the owner of the renowned local institution Jasmine Seafood Restaurant, which has served as a cultural heart in San Diego's Asian American community. Dr. Chan was recently awarded the prestigious, and highly selective, Ellis Island Medal of Honor for his legacy of community service centered around preserving history, traditions, and values, and paying homage to the immigrant experience as an integral part of American culture. I want to congratulate Dr. Chan, and thank him for his leadership in the AAPI community and for helping make San Diego a better place to live.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise as a cosponsor of this amendment, and I am glad to be working with Congresswoman Bonamici and my colleague on the Armed Services Committee, Ranking Member Adam Smith. Our amendment simply allows the Department of Energy to continue its collaborative work with the Department of Defense to produce biofuels for the military. The Department of Defense is the single largest institutional consumer of fuel in the world, and this is all about saving money because our military spends about $20 billion a year on energy, $16 billion of which goes to oil fuels. As we have seen in recent years, global oil markets are volatile. And despite massive production increases in the United States, according to the Energy Information Administration, last year, our net imports of petroleum were 5 million barrels per day, with our top five suppliers being Canada, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Venezuela, and Iraq. That reliance on a volatile, foreign-produced source of fuel puts our national security at risk, particularly when we face dynamic, new threats from nonstate actors such as ISIS, al Qaeda, or individual terrorists who can disrupt oil production and supply lines in new and intimidating ways. The constraints of depending so heavily on a single source of fuel also puts our readiness at risk, a problem that will only increase as we are forced to respond to international incidents across the globe at a moment's notice and as our military makes its strategic pivot toward the vast Pacific Ocean. Instead of standing idly by and waiting for a fuel-supply crisis that would endanger our ability to confront those wanting to harm our country, the Departments of Defense, Energy, and Agriculture have been working with private sector innovators to develop renewable biofuels that could be used by planes, tactical vehicles, and ships. The Navy already has innovative partnerships with algae producers and their high-skilled workers in my district in San Diego. Congress should be laying the groundwork for more strategic public- private partnerships to develop like those in San Diego, not mandating that they cannot exist. The military is not pursuing this fuel supply diversity because they are tree-hugging environmentalists but because it is a national security imperative. Foolishly, today's COMPETES Act would bar the Department of Defense from working with the Department of Energy on developing biofuels. Why would we undercut an effort that our military commanders are for and say will save lives?

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, our country, as Mr. Kilmer pointed out, is facing an ever-increasing global competition for scientific research. We can't afford to cede the leading edge we have built up in innovation to other countries, but the current level of funding in the underlying COMPETES bill does not provide adequate and constant funding for our basic scientific endeavors. It cuts energy efficiency and renewable energy by 37 percent, cuts electric grid reliability research by 30 percent, and cuts the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy, or ARPA-E, by 50 percent. These levels will not maintain strong foundations for basic scientific research and will make it even harder for us to retain young scientists in the United States. The Scripps Institution of Oceanography, a world leader in ocean research, has noted the harmful cuts to the geoscientist program, which is used to improve prediction for events, including earthquakes, tornados, hurricanes, tsunamis, drought, and solar storms. At a time of increasingly extreme weather, we should be investing in research, not cutting it. Unfortunately, the amendment offered by Mr. Kilmer, Ms. Esty, and me to increase funding by a small but significant 3.5 percent was not even given a chance to have a vote here on the House floor. I ask my colleagues to oppose this rule and to stand up for America's scientists and our competitiveness.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, diversifying our military's fuel supply is a national security imperative given the serious new threats we face as a country. More than 3,000 men and women in uniform have been killed or wounded since September 11, 2001, in attacks on our military's fuel convoys. Delivering technologies to our troops that improve efficiency so that they depend less on traditional sources of fuel is a lifesaving strategy. We need a strong, smart, forward-looking military force that provides our warfighters with the tools necessary to quickly and decisively confront the dynamic new threats our country is facing. As our military adapts in order to fight these new threats, we will need to increase our technological superiority, and part of that will depend on creating, developing, and delivering new kinds of energy to troops in the field. My amendment, which is included in this en bloc package--and I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their work on that--asks the Department of Defense to report on its plan to merge two offices at the Pentagon that handle parts of the military's energy strategy and sustainability efforts. Congress and the American people need assurance that these Pentagon offices have enough staff and resources to complete the missions asked of them and that we are seeing the desired increase in efficiency.