Scott Peters

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, while my Republican colleagues have promised to secure America's energy future, I share this goal and I am eager to work together. Again, I congratulate our new chair. However, I would say that the path to energy security is not through cheap political rhetoric or Biden bashing, but through bipartisan policy solutions. We all agree that oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve should not be sold to our adversaries. To prevent this, Representatives Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania and Don Bacon of Nebraska introduced the bipartisan Banning Oil Exports to Foreign Adversaries Act last July and reintroduced it yesterday with 34 Democratic and 7 Republican cosponsors. The bill prevents the sale or export of oil from the SPR to China, but also North Korea, Russia, Iran, and any country currently under U.S. sanctions. I bet it would be approved by voice vote in this House today. By contrast, the bill we are debating today only prohibits SPR sales to entities affiliated with China. Given that a more comprehensive, bipartisan bill already exists, why would our colleagues be putting forward a more partisan bill with a partial solution that won't pass the Senate? Let me be clear. Americans are looking for serious policy results, not half-baked ideas designed for a press release. If my colleagues across the aisle are serious about energy independence, let's talk about that. They will have to acknowledge that our path to true energy security is not by doubling down on oil. We have seen the costs of oil price shocks time and time again. In the 1970s, the Arab oil embargo caused oil prices to soar. In 1990, the first Gulf war spiked record prices. In 2005, Hurricane Katrina damaged refining facilities causing prices to rise again. Between December 2007 and July 2008, prices rose from $118 a barrel to over $160 per barrel before crashing during the Great Recession. In the last few years we have seen rapid volatility from negative prices during the pandemic to over $100 a barrel during the recovery. It is becoming very clear that we have to admit that doubling down on oil is a failed strategy, and true energy security will be achieved by reducing our reliance on fossil fuels and investing in clean fuels of the future. Let's do that for our taxpayers as well as for the environment. I look forward to working together on real solutions.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to support the Respect for Marriage Act. Today, we celebrate equality, fairness, and love. Since the Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell, all loving couples have had a right to marry across our country. However, if the Supreme Court won't protect Americans, especially in light of the repeal of Roe, we in Congress must do everything in our power to defend those freedoms. The Respect for Marriage Act ensures Federal marriage equality by guaranteeing the Federal rights, benefits, and obligations of marriages. Today's legislation provides certainty for those couples, and all future couples, that the Federal Government will continue to recognize their marriages, no matter where they live or who they are married to. I am proud to support this historic bill alongside members of both parties to protect the rights of San Diegans and Americans across the country.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, I stand today to honor the legacy of Walter Munk, a groundbreaking scientist and oceanographer who advanced our knowledge of waves, ocean temperature, the Earth's rotation, and much more. Born in Austria, he eventually made his way to San Diego and enlisted in the Army as World War II approached. In 1941, Munk returned to San Diego's Scripps Institute of Oceanography to work in the U.S. Navy Radio and Sound Laboratory. The scope of Walter Munk's work was vast. He helped meteorologists predict the waves troops would face in Normandy during World War II and developed methods incorporated into modern tsunami warning networks. His passion for his work and for San Diego also led him to push to build the UC San Diego campus in the 1960s. Later in life, and bolstered by years of expertise, Munk brought attention to climate change and conferred with figures like Pope Francis and the Dalai Lama to advocate for action. His work earned him the National Medal of Science and the Kyoto Prize. In his honor, I have proclaimed October 19 Walter Munk World Oceans Day in California's 52nd Congressional District.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 476, the motion that the House agree to the Senate amendment to H.R. 6833, I would have voted ``aye''. Members Recorded Pursuant to House Resolution 8, 117th Congress Bacon (Hartzler) Barr (McHenry) Beatty (Cicilline) Bergman (Moolenaar) Bilirakis (Fleischmann) Boyle, Brendan F. (Beyer) Brooks (Fleischmann) Brownley (Pingree) Buchanan (Bucshon) Budd (McHenry) Bustos (Pingree) Carson (Mrvan) Carter (TX) (Weber (TX)) Cawthorn (Gohmert) Cherfilus-McCormick (Neguse) Chu (Beyer) Conway (LaMalfa) Crawford (Fleischmann) Cuellar (Correa) Demings (Dean) DesJarlais (Fleischmann) Diaz-Balart (Reschenthaler) Donalds (Cammack) Doyle, Michael F. (Pallone) Dunn (Cammack) Eshoo (Thompson (CA)) Gimenez (Malliotakis) Gonzalez, Vicente (Correa) Gosar (Weber (TX)) Herrera Beutler (Meijer) Jacobs (NY) (Sempolinski) Jayapal (Cicilline) Johnson (TX) (Stevens) Kind (Beyer) Kinzinger (Meijer) Kirkpatrick (Pallone) Lawson (FL) (Stevens) Leger Fernandez (Cicilline) Lofgren (Correa) Long (Fleischmann) Lynch (Trahan) Mace (Smucker) Mast (Waltz) McEachin (Beyer) Meng (Escobar) Mfume (Beyer) Murphy (FL) (Peters) Nehls (Van Duyne) Newman (Beyer) Norman (Duncan) Ocasio-Cortez (Neguse) Payne (Pallone) Pfluger (Ellzey) Porter (Neguse) Pressley (Trahan) Rice (NY) (Morelle) Rice (SC) (Meijer) Rogers (AL) (Banks) Ryan (OH) (Correa) Salazar (Waltz) Sewell (Cicilline) Sherman (Garamendi) Sherrill (Pallone) Sires (Pallone) Soto (Escobar) Speier (Garcia (TX)) Steel (Obernolte) Stefanik (Reschenthaler) Steube (Reschenthaler) Tiffany (Fitzgerald) Timmons (Duncan) Vargas (Garamendi) Wilson (FL) (Cicilline) Wilson (SC) (Duncan)

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, today, we write a bold new chapter in our history by passing the Inflation Reduction Act, which will substantially lower the cost of living for San Diegans and all Americans. We are turning our climate ambition into climate action by establishing a methane fee to reduce harmful emissions, creating a clean energy technology bank, and funding wildfire resiliency efforts and clean energy infrastructure. Together, these investments will cut our greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent by 2030 and create 1.5 million good-paying jobs. This legislation is also the largest downpayment in deficit reduction since I have served in Congress. Importantly, the drug pricing reform framework I helped author will help seniors at the drug counter and protect private-sector innovation, and it has earned enough votes to pass the Senate. The Inflation Reduction Act is a historic measure. After months of negotiations and hard work, let's finally get this done. Vote ``yes.''

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to support the Ensuring Women's Right to Reproductive Freedom Act. After the Supreme Court eliminated the Federal right to abortion, only 20 States continue to protect a woman's right to choose. Even before Roe fell, States across the country were working to pass laws banning abortion even in cases of rape, incest, and when the life of the mother is at stake. That is not pro-family, and that is not pro- life. That is barbaric. Republican efforts to criminalize abortion will pit neighbors against neighbors, punish women for exercising their bodily autonomy, and imprison doctors who took an oath to protect their patients. That is happening right here in what is supposed to be the freest country in the world. That is why I am standing here, today, to protect a woman's right to travel in search of legal healthcare. Madam Speaker, if the Supreme Court won't protect Americans, then we in Congress must do everything in our power to stand up for our basic freedoms. That starts with this bill, and I urge my colleagues to pass it.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Madam Speaker, on Roll Call No. 281 On Agreeing to the Amendment, I am mistakenly recorded as a NAY. I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 281. I oppose the transfer of military equipment to local law enforcement departments.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, I just want to respond to a couple things I heard. One is this tip of the iceberg idea that we are doing something beyond methane by doing this. Of course, that is not how it works around here. The laws are specifically written around what we are doing. We are only voting on this. I can tell you that if we were doing more than this, we might get a different response from the oil and gas industry than we have seen. That is not a real argument. The other thing is that this is somehow cooked up by the Biden administration as a way to undercut oil and gas. Again, I want to go through all of the names that Ms. DeGette went through of the companies and organizations that support this regulation, but it is hard to argue that the American Petroleum Institute is anything other than American. It is also hard to argue, even with a company that is based someplace else, that they would be arguing to burden, as it is characterized, their United States operations with these regulations. There would be no incentive for them to do that, no matter where the corporate headquarters is based. The fact is that these companies see this as a way to be competitive, and it is not unprecedented. One thing we did on the committee last term that became part of the year-end spending plan was the American Innovation and Manufacturers Act, which regulated HFCs. If you recall, the industry supported the institution of standards around HFCs so that it could compete successfully with manufacturers around the world that are building from the same standards. It was actually helpful for them to have a uniform standard that they could innovate around, and that is why Republicans and Democrats supported that and it became part of a bipartisan end-of-year package. We are in the same situation here where businesses are saying, set a standard here. Don't tell us that we are going to get one set of regulations, by the way, in Colorado, and virtually no regulations in Texas. We are not being duplicative at all. What we are doing is setting a standard. Let's set a Federal standard. Let's do it at the request of the industry and with the cooperation of the industry to make sure we get it right. And I guess the other remarkable thing that is implied by all of this discussion is that we are talking about regulating methane out of oil and gas production. No one is talking about banning oil and gas. We wouldn't have to be talking about methane at all if we were talking about that. In fact, we are trying to take oil and gas and get it right, to get it competitive, and get it to be climate-friendly for our future generations. So I thought that the one glaring omission from my colleagues' arguments is: How do you explain so much support from American oil and gas companies for this regulation? I wouldn't suggest that it is unanimous. I would say probably it is not. But to dismiss it is really, I think, missing the point. And I think it is obvious that this industry sees this as an advantage in terms of competitiveness going forward, as Mr. Lamb said as well.

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding. I am here to speak in favor of S.J. Res. 14, a resolution I co-led with Representatives DeGette and Lamb. We need to address methane emissions for several reasons, and today, I want to mention three. First, controlling methane is the single most important immediate step we can take to combat climate change, and that is because methane is a super-pollutant responsible for about 25 percent of the man-made warming we experience today. This is the low-hanging fruit in climate mitigation. My Republican colleagues never miss a chance--and you will hear this today--to point out that the natural gas revolution has contributed to our historic energy independence and cut our carbon dioxide emissions from energy production. That is right, but there is still a problem, and that problem is fugitive methane emissions. While burning natural gas can lower CO2 emissions by as much as 40 to 50 percent versus burning coal, almost all of that benefit, from a climate change perspective, is wiped out even with small leaks of methane, which we have today. Put simply, to reap the climate benefits of natural gas, which are often touted, we have to address methane emissions. Second, controlling methane is critical to the economic competitiveness of the U.S. natural gas industry. We should say thanks to the oil and gas industry when they do the right thing, but let's not fool ourselves by thinking that they are doing this because they are altruists. They are doing this because this is important to competitiveness. They are doing this because this makes American oil and gas more competitive. The reason is that world markets and domestic politics will not tolerate natural gas as a so-called bridge fuel unless the industry can prove, with real credibility and transparency, that it has fixed its methane problem. It is increasingly apparent that the viability of exporting U.S. liquefied natural gas, or LNG, depends on American policies to address methane pollution. Three of the largest LNG importers in the world, South Korea, Japan, and the European Union, have set goals to reduce emissions to net-zero by mid-century. These nations will demand verifiably clean gas from the United States. On top of this, investors are increasingly putting pressure on financial institutions and demanding climate-smart investment portfolios. Natural gas will solely be seen as a climate risk and not as a climate opportunity if methane leaks persist. We saw this recently in the cancellation by France of a deal for liquefied natural gas from Brownsville, $7 billion over 20 years. Ultimately, they were able to put that back together, but this is a sign of what is to come. If we don't get it right here, it is going to hurt business. They all sounded like businesses to me, what Ms. DeGette talked about. I am not from Texas or Oklahoma, but I have heard of Exxon, and I have heard of the American Petroleum Institute. If they are for it, it says something about where business is, what they think about competitiveness. Third, U.S. companies can lead the world in developing technologies to monitor and reduce methane emissions. Dealing with climate change is a science project. It is not a jobs program, but it does create a lot of jobs. Seventy-five percent of the manufacturing firms and 88 percent of service firms in the sector report that they would create more jobs if the national methane standards were reinstated. And the starting salary for methane mitigation jobs is nearly 10 percent higher than the national average salary and can pay up to $140,000 a year. These companies represent the best of American innovation, creating economic opportunity and tackling global challenges at the same time. Today, we in Congress can soundly reject one of the most irresponsible environmental rollbacks of the prior administration. We can restore robust methane pollution standards, and we can clear a path for stronger protections in the future. I am proud to be a co-lead on this resolution. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes.'' This is a win-win-win for climate, public health, and U.S. industry.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I introduced the Ocean Pollution Reduction Act II, or OPRA II, for three reasons: one, to ensure that the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant's waiver process is fair and efficient; two, to further reduce the facility's pollution output to the ocean; and three, to increase our region's freshwater supply. The city's proposed wastewater recycling plan, the Pure Water Program, will guarantee the region's water security and further reduce the amount of wastewater that flows into the ocean from the plant. OPRA II requires that the city of San Diego demonstrate that the Pure Water Program can produce 83 million gallons of freshwater a day by 2036. This is an estimated one-third of the entire city's drinking water needs. Over the same period, the program is expected to reduce treated wastewater flows from the Point Loma plant by over 100 million gallons. This bill replaces the complex and expensive secondary treatment waiver application with a simpler process, as long as the city meets stringent water recycling milestones. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise during Mental Health Awareness Month to bring attention to tardive dyskinesia, or TD, a persistent and potentially disabling movement disorder that can be a side effect of medications prescribed to treat mental illness. According to a survey of people diagnosed with TD, more than half reported that the disorder seriously disrupts their sleep and their ability to work. People living with TD often face stigma, which can worsen mental health symptoms and cause withdrawal from society. While TD affects over half a million people in the United States, it remains a relatively unknown condition, often unrecognized, and patients suffering from the illness may be misdiagnosed. Earlier this month, Senator Chris Murphy introduced S. 184, recognizing the week of May 2 to May 8 as Tardive Dyskinesia Awareness Week. Improving awareness and understanding of TD will help reduce the stigma of mental illness and help us provide better treatment to this underserved patient population.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, like many, my district has been hit hard by this pandemic. The virus has claimed the lives of 3,200 San Diegans. Nine out of ten small businesses in the region report suffering in the face of COVID-related closures. I am voting to send this bill to the Senate because this plan will safely reopen schools, get vaccines in arms, and help people get back to work and the economy back on track. And the bill allows States and localities to provide financial relief to our Nation's ports, like the Port of San Diego, which expects a loss this year of over $98 million. Still, I remain concerned about the targeting and accountability around some of the funding, so I am urging the Senate to make some comments and some improvements: Extend the duration of unemployment payments, ideally with automatic triggers; adjust the amount of timing of State aid based on real revenue shortfall resulting from COVID; and expand funding for industries bearing the brunt of this crisis, like small restaurants, public attractions, and live entertainment. Mr. Speaker, I am voting ``yes'' because this is a good start. We have to keep it on track, but there is more work to do.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. When Congress passed the emergency COVID bill in December, we knew more resources would be needed to fight the virus and provide additional relief for many Americans who have been devastated financially. Now we are working to accomplish that by March 14 when the enhanced unemployment benefits will expire. I fully support the beginning of the process of budget reconciliation because we need to start the clock. In my experience in Congress, and yours, too, we all know that this place works much better with a deadline. However, I would hope that we can respond to this challenge in a bipartisan way as we did last March and again in December, and maybe this proposal could be better targeted. I am encouraged by the $600 billion proposal of 10 Republican Senators. Some have scoffed at this offer, called it an insult, or dismissed it as not serious. I don't agree with that. $600 billion is a lot of money, but it is not adequate for the task at hand. We need more help to open schools and to keep people housed. State and local governments need assistance to prevent more layoffs and make up for lost revenue, and we should stop guessing how long we will need unemployment and food assistance. As the New Democrat Coalition has advocated from the beginning, we should enact automatic triggers to keep them flowing and then shut them off according to economic conditions. Our biggest challenge as a nation is not one particular issue, but the deep division among us here in Congress and among citizens across America. Bipartisanship has intrinsic value and we should prioritize it. But today's action will ensure that we have a relief package on time no matter the politics. This is a step we have to take.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. For 40 years, the city of San Diego has treated the region's sewage through the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant. It is a chemically enhanced primary treatment facility that treats wastewater to a level that can be discharged into the ocean without harming the environment. The Clean Water Act generally requires sewer systems to implement a secondary level of treatment. However, scientists at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography have consistently said that forcing San Diego ratepayers to pay billions of dollars to upgrade the Point Loma facility to secondary treatment would be a waste of money because the enhanced advanced treatment the plant currently provides, combined with its 4-mile-long outfall, causes no harm to the ocean environment. In fact, the construction of a new facility along the coastline could do more harm than good. For these reasons, San Diego has been allowed to avoid building a new facility through a Federal waiver process at a cost of millions of dollars every 5 years. Water has always been in short supply in southern California, yet, during my first years on the San Diego City Council in the early 2000s, I was one of only three council members to support blackwater recycling to improve the reliability of our regional water supply. Even though all water is recycled, our opponents at the time dubbed it ``toilet to tap.'' Now, however, we recognize that historic droughts, combined with the shortage of melting snow, have made our water supply shortage a permanent challenge for the West. And today, San Diego's proposed water recycling plan with the more accurate moniker, the ``pure water program,'' has widespread support from among local elected leaders, environmental advocates, and State regulators. In 2019, I introduced the Ocean Pollution Reduction Act II, or OPRA II, to support the dual goals of increasing fresh water supply and reducing pollution output to the ocean. Under OPRA II, the city of San Diego must demonstrate that the pure water program can produce 83 million gallons a day of water by 2036. This is an estimated one-third of the entire city's drinking water needs. Over the same period, the program is expected to reduce pollution discharge from the Point Loma plant by over 100 million gallons. Pure water will still require substantial investment from San Diego ratepayers; however, this bill replaces the complex and expensive secondary treatment waiver application with a simpler and more environmentally effective process if the city meets stringent water recycling milestones. OPRA II has been a decades-long labor of love among the city of San Diego, its regional partners, and State and Federal Government. It will deploy cost-effective technology and will protect our region's water sources, technology that could one day be deployed by other vulnerable communities to help address water shortage issues. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I thank my colleagues.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and the chairman for his leadership. Mr. Speaker, last year, I visited Bernardo Heights Middle School in Rancho Bernardo to meet with students of the school's SAVE Promise Club and the Mental Health Awareness Club. The kids told me about their efforts to make their peers feel more accepted by creating a culture of kindness and by using their voices to end the stigma surrounding mental health. They explained their work with programs intended to promote inclusivity and to prevent violence by teaching children and adults to identify, intervene, and help those at risk of harming themselves or others. According to the National Institute of Mental Health, suicide is the second leading cause of death by those 10 to 24 years old, with cases of suicide among Black and other minority youth rapidly rising. The good news is that adolescent suicide and violence can be prevented if others heed the warning signs. Seventy percent of those who die by suicide tell someone their plans or demonstrate warning signs ahead of time. Eighty percent of school shooters tell someone their plans ahead of time. That is why I teamed up with my friend from Florida, Mr. Gus Bilirakis, to introduce the bipartisan STANDUP Act. The Act requires States, schools, and Tribes to implement evidence- based policies to prevent suicides in order to receive Project AWARE grants, which boost youth mental health awareness among schools and communities. These policies are key to preventing school violence by encouraging early prevention, teaching warning signs, and providing schools with crucial tools to help stop violence before it happens. Mr. Speaker, I thank Sandy Hook Promise, who helped champion this bill, and for hosting my visit at Bernardo Heights Middle School. Along with them, over 50 student and mental health-focused organizations support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I thank all the Bernardo Heights Bobcats, who care so well for each other's mental health. We want to bring that same spirit, their same spirit, to every school in the country. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to pass the STANDUP Act to protect our students and enhance school safety. Go Bobcats.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to celebrate the birthday of an extraordinary constituent and American hero. She is a World War II veteran, a U.S. Army Corps nurse, a Purple Heart recipient, a proud American patriot, an activity community member, and a birthday card enthusiast. She is the remarkable Alice Johnson of Rancho Bernardo, California. I commend her service to our country, love of adventure, dedication to the well-being of others, and fun-loving spirit as she reaches this momentous milestone of 100 years. Alice Johnson was born on September 12, 1920, in Cambridge, Massachusetts. She completed her nursing education in 1941. After Pearl Harbor, she enlisted in the U.S. Army Nurse Corps. Her unit arrived in Okinawa, Japan, on Easter Sunday in 1945, where she helped establish a field hospital ahead of the U.S. invasion of Japan. A few months later, eight Japanese Kamikaze planes descended upon the island, and U.S. troops attempted to shoot them down. Alice was injured in the crossfire and evacuated to Hawaii for surgery. She was awarded a Purple Heart after her service overseas. Later in life, Alice served as a flight attendant for United Airlines, back when flight attendants were required to be nurses. Always interested in nursing and travel, she accepted a nursing position at a hospital in Aruba. There, she met and married John Johnson, and together, they had four children. Alice moved back to the U.S. and continued her nursing career at a private cancer practice, at a burn hospital, and as a public health nurse for vision and hearing tests in schools. After her retirement, Alice settled in Rancho Bernardo, California, near her family, and remains active, attending Hope United Methodist Church, square dancing with friends, and playing mahjong at the Poway Senior Center. Her daughter, Elaine, and son-in-law, Bill, reached out to me to share her life stories worthy of celebration as she becomes a centenarian. I am overjoyed to wish Alice Johnson the very happiest 100th birthday. On behalf of the constituents of California's 52nd District, we honor her selfless service in World War II, her dedicated career as a nurse, and the joy she continuously brings to all who know her. I wish a happy 100th birthday to Alice. She is a treasure to us all.

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the wildfires currently ravaging the West Coast of the United States. More than 85 major fires, spanning from Washington State to Southern California are burning, as I speak. Thirty-five people have died, only ashes remain in hundreds of communities, tens of thousands have fled their homes and many individuals are still missing. Some survivors compare the site of the flames to the gates of hell. This year alone, California has seen over 2,600 more fires and a nearly 2,000 percent increase in the acres burned compared to this time last year. That is according to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, or Cal-Fire. The frequency and intensity are no accident. We used to refer to early fall as ``wildfire season'' but the threat of these fires is now present throughout the year. In San Diego and in other areas of Southern California, dry and arid conditions, paired with high temperatures, can make for a deadly combination. The Valley fire in eastern San Diego County, which is now 87 percent contained, burned almost 18,000 acres of land and prompted the closure of the Cleveland National Forest. That fire started 10 days ago, but smoke and haze across the county are barely now beginning to clear. The air quality continues to pose a risk for sensitive groups. This fire is only the latest in a long history of destructive fires in San Diego County. I call on my fellow Members of Congress to accept and recognize this truth: Our actions don't exist in a vacuum. The consequences of our actions lead to rising temperatures and more extreme natural events, including hurricanes, droughts, and flooding. It is not a matter of belief. Yearly patterns show us how these changes aren't natural. They are man-made. They are climate change. We owe it to every single firefighter and first responder to act on this issue now. Every day, they risk their lives in the blistering heat, not knowing if they will make it back home. We are beyond grateful for their bravery and their unwavering dedication to public safety. These conditions leading to the devastation on the West Coast are preventable, but the only way forward is through bipartisan partnerships to address the key drivers of climate change. Saving lives, infrastructure, and our lands from the effects of severe weather require concrete and swift action on the climate crisis now. Recognizing Alice Johnson on Her 100th Birthday

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an extraordinary San Diegan and World War II veteran, U.S. Navy Commander William ``Bill'' Vogt. Bill passed away in February, at the age of 107, and will be laid to rest at Miramar National Cemetery today. Bill served with honor and distinction as an intelligence officer for nearly 30 years and was, according to Navy records, the oldest living U.S. military officer. Bill joined the U.S. Navy Reserve in 1940 and was called to Active Duty on December 8, 1941, the day after the attack on Pearl Harbor. His first assignment was to the District Intelligence Office covering the southern coast of California. There, he searched for submarine activity and intercepted Nazi mail bound for Mexico and sent summaries of it up the chain of command. He served in Guam, where he headed an operation that led to the surrender of the last two Japanese army holdouts, who had hidden in the jungles there since the U.S. landings in 1944. Later, Bill served in the Pentagon as an intelligence watch officer during the Bay of Pigs and the Cuban Missile Crisis. In 1969, during his last tour of duty in San Diego, William debriefed sailors of the USS Pueblo after they had been held captive in North Korea for 11 months. At one point during his remarkable career, during a time of significant labor unrest, Bill was contacted by Roy Cohn, Senator Joseph McCarthy's lawyer. Cohn asked Bill to conduct domestic spying in support of McCarthy's anti-Communist hearings. Bill viewed the request as illegal and refused it, and he refused to turn over the files Cohn wanted on the Longshoreman's Union. Then, and until the very end, Bill Vogt was a fierce defender of our Constitution. Bill was one of the first students to attend San Diego State University and lived to be its oldest known graduate. In 1934, he completed his degree in commerce. The Nation was in the midst of the Great Depression, so Bill set off immediately to begin working and so never received his official diploma. Eighty-four years after earning it, San Diego State President Adela de la Torre presented it to him at the age of 105. Bill met his beloved wife, Lillian, in Coronado, and they were married for 67 years. He is survived by his son, Bob; his daughter, Michelle; five grandchildren; and seven great-grandchildren. Bob described his father as a ``best friend, a hero, and a role model.'' Bob wrote to me in 2019 and told me his father lived near me and wanted to spend some time talking about his country with his Congressman and have a drink. It was an honor to spend some time with Bill, to raise a glass with this great American. Still sharp at 106, with somewhat diminished hearing, I must say, he shared stories from his extraordinary military career. He showed me his collection of books about history and politics, and he told me of his deep concern over the state of our democracy. He urged me to keep fighting to protect it and to never give up the fight. He still had not. Bill Vogt represented the best of San Diego and the best of America. On behalf of a grateful Nation, we thank him and wish him and his family fair winds and following seas.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 7120, the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act. Just to reflect on the comments from the gentleman, my colleague from Louisiana, we all believe that cops are good people who became--most cops are good people who became officers to serve their communities. The provisions in today's bill will help us support the good cops by rooting out the bad ones. But, fundamentally, the culture of policing in this country must change. There is a tremendous amount of support nationally, and I believe in this body, for better training, transparency, and accountability. It is devastating that we are acting too late to save the lives of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor and Eric Garner and the many other victims who haven't even made headlines. But there is hope that this bill can save lives and protect Black lives moving forward. We may not finish today, but this is an important start. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation and vote ``yes.''

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 965 to authorize remote voting and to continue committee proceedings remotely during the public health emergency of COVID-19. Governors and mayors across the Nation have ordered Americans to stay home, to work from home, and avoid travel. Until we have adequate testing or a vaccine to protect ourselves and prevent our healthcare system from being overwhelmed, the best we can do here is to follow that advice. We in Congress must do what we have asked of our constituents and what others have ordered of them. Some argue--and we have heard this just recently--that because we are asking our frontline heroes to show up at work, we lawmakers should be required to convene here in D.C. But that argument misses the point and dishonors our frontline workers, particularly those healthcare workers who are begging people to stay home, to avoid nonessential travel in order to slow the spread of this deadly disease. They ask others to stay home so that some day they can go home. We in Congress are not first responders or frontline healthcare workers, although our frontline responders are certainly counting on us to provide them the resources they need. But we can hold our meetings and conduct our communications electronically. And because of the space limitations created by the need for physical distancing, working remotely is probably the only way that all of our committees can function at the same time. Like everyone else, I don't want to give up the opportunity to work with my colleagues in person. Our interactions are too productive, and our relationships are too valuable. But in the face of this once-in-a- lifetime global pandemic, we need to overcome our default position. Remote voting is not cowardice. It is leadership. Let's live by the same rules we impose on our fellow citizens. Let's show by our actions that we ourselves take this threat seriously. I want to thank the leadership of Mr. McGovern and Ms. Lofgren and all of the other folks who have worked on this, including my friend, Mr. Cole, and I urge support of this resolution.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), my colleague and the chair of the committee.

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment to H.R. 1140, the Rights for Transportation Security Officers Act. Mr. Chair, I thank Chairman Thompson for his work on this important bill to help get our Transportation Security officers, or TSOs, onto the General Schedule scale and give them needed workplace protections that other Federal workers receive. Every week, other Members of Congress and I see the vital role Transportation Security officers perform in keeping our country safe. They are essential to national security. Unfortunately, there is a serious employee recruitment and retention problem at the Transportation Security Administration. In 2017, the TSA spent $75 million just on recruitment, hiring, and training costs. Over 1,900 TSOs quit that year, at a cost of $16 million to the taxpayer. Putting these employees on the GS scale will help with these retention issues. Additionally, Congress needs to ensure we recruit the most qualified individuals to combat terrorism and keep travelers safe. In order to do that, we need to know how the TSA is recruiting top candidates, including military veterans. My amendment requires a GAO study on how the TSA recruits workers and, specifically, TSA's efforts to recruit veterans and military spouses. In San Diego, where we have the third largest veteran population in the country, we often see vets continuing to serve their country through Federal employment. Security jobs like those in the TSA demand a competency often found in military veterans. Hiring vets is an asset to the TSA, but we have heard from TSOs in my district that job dissatisfaction prompts many of them to leave the TSA in favor of working elsewhere. The GAO study I am proposing will also provide recommendations for improvement, enabling the TSA to continue cultivating a workforce that complements the goals of the agency and responsibly spends our tax dollars. Many Members of this Chamber, on both sides of the aisle, have stood on this floor and championed the cause of hiring vets and military spouses. It is a policy that we have incentivized private corporations to implement, and we have criticized employers for not doing or doing improperly. Mr. Chair, I ask that my colleagues support this amendment so that we can ensure TSA is effectively recruiting the most qualified candidates and spending our taxpayer dollars wisely. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers) not opposing this particular amendment, understanding his reservations about the underlying bill. I think what we are trying to do in good faith is to address some of the issues that he has raised about what some of the best procedures are to pursue going forward. Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues for their support, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Madam Speaker, San Diego County is home to over 230,000 veterans. Each year thousands of servicemembers exit the military and choose to stay in San Diego. It has been one of my greatest priorities in Congress to support those in the Armed Forces transitioning back into civilian life. The transition can be tougher for some people than for others. Many veterans struggle with mental health conditions like post-traumatic stress or traumatic brain injury, and they may turn to alcohol or drugs to deal with these mental health issues. Studies have shown that the top two risk factors to becoming homeless are mental health issues and substance use disorders. The next biggest risk factor is economic insecurity. In expensive regions like ours, rising housing costs can exacerbate these risks and drive up the rate of homelessness. In our county we have over 1,000 veterans experiencing homelessness. We have made serious progress, as my colleague, Mr. Hill, said, here in Congress in reducing the number of veterans experiencing homelessness primarily due to the HUD-VA Supportive Housing, or HUD- VASH, voucher program, which aims to serve chronically homeless veterans. HUD-VASH recognizes housing first as the best way to end homelessness and couples rental assistance with case management services from the VA. Since this partnership was forged between HUD and VA in 2019, the rate of veteran homelessness has been cut in half. HUD-VASH works, and I have spent the past several years supporting the program and looking for ways to improve it. One of those ways to improve this program is to expand eligibility for those who don't have access to the program. Currently, veterans with other than honorable discharges are not eligible for HUD-VASH because, generally, they don't have access to VA healthcare. A veteran could receive, I think as Chairwoman Waters mentioned, an other than honorable discharge for administrative or relatively minor reasons. This eligibility gap prevents thousands of homeless veterans from being housed while receiving critical supportive services. Now, Congress has recognized the value of extending access to veterans for other VA homelessness service programs. Two years ago, we allowed other than honorable veterans to access the grant and per diem program for transitional housing and supportive services for veteran families for rapid rehousing. This bill, my bill, the bipartisan Veteran HOUSE Act, closes this gap. The legislation expands eligibility for the HUD-VASH program to include veterans with other than honorable, but not dishonorable, discharges. We know how to end veteran homelessness. Several cities across the country have already achieved functional zero. HUD-VASH is one of the most vital tools we have to accomplish this goal, and we must make sure more homeless veterans have access to this resource. This bill will see that at least 1,300 additional veterans are eventually served by HUD-VASH and will stop more homeless veterans from falling through the cracks. Madam Speaker, I thank the Financial Services Committee, particularly Chairwoman Waters, Mr. Heck, and Mr. Stivers, for moving this bill through their subcommittee. I also thank my colleagues on the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Chairman Takano and Chairman Levin, for taking swift action on this bill last year. Both committees passed this bill with unanimous support. Finally, I thank all the local organizations in San Diego for supporting this bill, as well as the National Alliance to End Homelessness and many national veterans service organizations, including The American Legion, the VFW, Disabled American Veterans, and Paralyzed Veterans of America. Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support the Veterans HOUSE Act, and I call on the Senate to act on this bill to help more homeless veterans.