Scott Peters

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. I am in its current form.

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill. It will not require that it go back for further action. My amendment would increase funding for the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence by $5 million. It is our responsibility as a Congress to provide the American people with financial security, national security, and security in the belief that their voice counts in Washington, D.C. Instead, the underlying bill rolls back reforms put in place after the 2008 financial collapse, further undermines the campaign finance system, reduces access to affordable health care, and underfunds the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, which is tasked with targeting the finances of terrorist groups. In an era of new and dynamic threats, we need a tough, smart national security strategy to keep Americans safe. Even as we counter aggressors like China and Russia, we are faced with threats from nonstate terrorist groups like ISIS, al Qaeda, and the Taliban. Our military has taken the fight to them. In May, an American drone strike in Pakistan killed Taliban leader Mullah Akhtar Muhammad Mansour, and as of June 28, the U.S. military and its coalition partners had conducted over 13,000 strikes against ISIS. Those strikes have destroyed over 26,000 targets in Iraq and Syria. Coupled with our brave special operators on the ground, this air campaign has helped our allies make considerable progress in the fight against ISIS. ISIS has lost 45 percent of the territory it once held in Iraq and 20 percent of what it once held in Syria, and ISIS no longer occupies strongholds like Fallujah and Ramadi. Pentagon spokesman Captain Jeff Davis recently said: ``There has been no strategic victory for ISIS in over a year now.'' But even as we have taken back territory and degraded their capabilities, the last few months have demonstrated ISIS' prevailing ability to direct or inspire attacks in the West. Paris, Brussels, Baghdad, Istanbul, and recently Orlando--ISIS' ability to direct or inspire attacks poses a clear threat to our security and to American lives at home and abroad. In the United States, we have seen how difficult it is for our law enforcement and intelligence agencies to stop lone-wolf attackers inspired by ISIS, and in Europe we have seen the devastation that highly coordinated ISIS-directed terrorist attacks can inflict on soft targets like airports and train stations. These attacks involved terrorist fighters financed by ISIS using military-grade weaponry. In many cases, the fighters traveled to and from the Middle East to be trained. Even as we kill their leaders, destroy their safe havens, and take back their territory, the threat from ISIS will not be eliminated until we remove their ability to direct and finance terrorist attacks. Created by President Bush in 2004, the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence has extensive and critical responsibilities that include combating terrorist financing domestically and internationally. They work with law enforcement, diplomats, and intelligence agencies, and with the private sector and foreign governments to identify and eliminate sources of financing for terrorist networks. They also combat financial support for the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence cuts lines of financial support, freezes assets, and makes it harder for terrorist cells to finance and carry out attacks. By hitting the terrorists where it hurts--in their wallets--our financial intelligence officers make Americans safer. My amendment will provide the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence with the additional resources it needs to carry out this mission; and moving forward, the House should also consider bipartisan legislation introduced by Representatives Sinema and Fitzpatrick to develop a coordinated governmentwide strategy to combat terrorist financing. By supporting this smart, targeted approach to undermining terrorist networks, we can support the American pilots and special operators who are risking their lives in the fight against terrorism, and we can help prevent future attacks. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, Auburn, Washington, March 31, 2013: Nicholas Lindsay, 25; Lorenzo Duncan, 23; Antuan Greer, 21. Suwanee, Georgia, July 22, 2015: Jerry Manning, 75 years old; Rebecca Manning, 37; Jacob Smith, 9; Jared Smith, 8. Baltimore, Maryland, January 23, 2013: Deshaun Jones, 15. Chattanooga, Tennessee, January 23, 2015: Demetrius Davis, 19. St. Louis, Missouri, January 25, 2013: Terry Robinson, Jr., 28. Cedar Bluff, Alabama, November 16, 2015: Sylvia Duffy, 71; Clara Edwards, 68; Pamela O'Shel, 48. Jonesboro, Arkansas, May 3, 2014: Crisanto Islas, 38; Richardo Lopez, 31; Floza Davila, 12; Brayam Davila, 10.

Mr. PETERS

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

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking member.

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

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment strikes language in the underlying bill that undermines and underfunds the Department of Defense's ability to develop and acquire alternative fuels that improve mission capabilities under section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Section 526 established important baselines that guide private sector innovators in the development of alternative fuels for our military. It is a low-cost, commonsense provision that helps the military fulfill its existing goals to diversify its fuel supply to reduce costs and save lives. It does not, as some incorrectly claim, ban any fuels. It has not hindered the Department of Defense from purchasing the fuels that we need right now to counter the new and dynamic threats we face throughout the globe. It simply requires fuel producers seeking to do business with our military to meet certain requirements. We cannot expect to fight and to win the wars of tomorrow with only the fuels of yesterday. A $1 increase in the price of a barrel of oil translates to approximately a $130 million increase in DOD expenditures over the course of a year. A blip in the world oil market forces the Department to redirect resources away from mission priorities--grounding planes and turning ships around. Since September 11, 2001, more than 3,000 servicemembers have been killed or wounded in attacks on fuel convoys in Afghanistan. Delivering technologies to our troops that improve efficiency and cost certainty over traditional sources of fuel is both a lifesaving strategy and has tactical benefits on the battlefield. Some of my colleagues on the other side of this issue will say that section 526 is putting President Obama's green climate initiative into national security policy, but that is not true. But this provision was signed into law 9 years ago by a Republican President, George Bush. It is still supported by our military leaders today, and Congress should support it. My colleagues will say that they are simply broadening the market for alternative fuels for the military, but they are not. They are ripping the bottom out from under it. By inserting an anti-environmental agenda into the process of funding our national defense, the funding prohibition cripples existing efforts at the DOD to purchase cost-competitive biofuels and abolishes any certainty in the commercial marketplace. This would take us backwards at a time when we need a smart, forward- looking approach to increase fuel diversity, particularly in ways that improve efficiency, enhance our range and agility, and better prepare our forces for future security environments where logistics may be constrained. Energy security is national security. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, I would just say, again, the politics on this amendment is really on the other side. We have seen the military support this. This is an effort started by President George Bush to improve our security and cost containment. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support removing this restriction by voting for this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my request for a recorded vote.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, Norfolk, Virginia, January 1, 2014: Melvin Alston, 32 years old; Marcus Deering, 22. Saylorsburg, Pennsylvania, August 6, 2013: James ``Vinny'' LaGuardia, 64 years old; David Fleetwood, 62; Gerard Kozic, 53. Beaumont, Texas, March 16, 2014: Darrell Hawkins, 34 years old; Anthony Ray Hawkins, 33; Reshawna Hawkins, 30. Savannah, Georgia, December 2, 2015: Brandy Council, 34 years old. Oceanside, California, March 13, 2013: Edgar Sanchez Rios, 16 years old; Melanie Virgen, 13. Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, May 24, 2014: Jamie Williams, 28 years old; Sandy Gaddis Barnwell, 22; Devonte Dantzler, 21. Killeen, Texas, February 22, 2015: Larry Guzman, 40 years old; Lydia Farina, 31; Dawn Giffa, 28. Auburn, Washington, March 31, 2013: Nicholas Lindsay, 26 years old.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, Platte, South Dakota, September 17, 2015: Nicole Westerhuis, 41 years old; Connor Westerhuis, 14; Michael Westerhuis, 16; Jaeci Westerhuis, 10; Kailey Westerhuis, 9. Piketon, Ohio, April 22, 2016: Kenneth Rhoden, 44 years old; Christopher Rhoden, Sr., 40; Gary Rhoden, 38; Dana Manley Rhoden, 37; Hanna May Rhoden, 22; Hannah Hazel Gilley, 20; Clarence Rhoden, 20; Christopher Rhoden, Jr., 16. Macon, Georgia, December 12, 2014: Derrick Jackson, 38 years old; George Henley, 34; Corey Hollingshed, 25. Dallas, Texas, January 4, 2015: Deborah Lou Stanley, 57 years old; Max Vester McEwen, 54; Jose Alfredo Lopez, 21. Norfolk, Virginia, January 1, 2014: Melvin Alston, 32 years old; Marcus Deering, 22.

Mr. PETERS

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

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, my amendment simply expresses something scientists know to be true and something that is recognized everywhere in the world but in these halls of the United States Congress, that climate change is real and influenced by human activity. We need Congress to get on board with a response, not to stand in the way. That is important for at least three reasons. First, if we are to lower the rate and impact of greenhouse gas emissions, we need Federal action. The largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States is from burning fossil fuels, which raises atmospheric levels of CO2. Super pollutants like methane and HFCs are many times more potent than CO2 and are the most significant drivers of climate change. Greenhouse gas emissions can affect coastal regions, energy, defense, food supplies, wildfire preparedness, and our quality of life. That is why just last month the United States signed the historic Paris climate agreement so as to reduce emissions by at least 26 percent by 2025. As a country that contributes 17 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, we pledge to do our part. This follows President Obama's executive order on climate change, which established national sustainability goals for the Federal Government. We need Congress to support these efforts, not to get in the way. Second, all new national plans and projects should consider these effects of climate change as we make decisions about what and where to build infrastructure and to permit projects. Extreme weather conditions are at an all-time high. One of my first votes as a Member of Congress was to fund a response to Superstorm Sandy with an appropriation of $60 billion off budget. That is just going to keep happening, folks. Regions around the world are experiencing intense droughts, longer wildfire seasons, and water shortages and flooding, and sea levels are rising at twice the rate they were 20 years ago, threatening to cause destructive erosion, powerful storms, the contamination of agriculture, and lost habitat for wildlife. We have to make sure that Federal permitting and construction learns the lessons from these trends and these events and that we account for the effect of rising seas, increased winds, and drought on the buildings and infrastructure that we approve and build. We have to build resiliency into Federal decisionmaking, not dodge the question. A bipartisan Bloomberg report estimated that, if we do not address climate change, between $66 billion and $106 billion worth of coastal property in the United States will be below sea level by 2050. Third, we need to bring our Federal practices into line with what is already happening outside of the United States Congress, the only entity in the world with its collective head in the sand on the reality of climate change. There are 175 countries that are on board. That is how many signed the historic Paris Agreement on the first day it was open for signature. There are 154 companies that are on board with Paris, and businesses across the country have committed to putting forward climate targets by reducing carbon emissions and becoming more energy efficient. PepsiCo, Apple, Qualcomm, Nestle, Kellogg's, and Starbucks are among the private businesses that have included sustainability and alternative energy as smart business practice, and the Department of Defense, our own military, is on board, acting now to address the impacts of climate change. In January, the Pentagon released a directive stating: The Department of Defense must be able to adapt current and future operations to address the impacts of climate change in order to maintain an effective and efficient United States military. Mr. Speaker, let's take a cue from the rest of the world, the American private sector, and the Pentagon and consider climate change in permitting and siting. For some of my colleagues on the other side, the politics of simple facts may be frightening, but U.S. leadership to curb climate change is not about politics or ideology. It is about security, ensuring the health of our citizens and of our families, and seizing the unprecedented economic opportunity of the clean energy revolution. The stakes of climate change have never been higher. The time to act is now. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chair, I intended to vote the following ways on the measures listed below on Wednesday, May 25, 2016. 1. ``Yes'' on Agreeing to the First Polis of Colorado Amendment to H.R. 5055. 2. ``No'' on Agreeing to the Second Polis of Colorado Amendment to H.R. 5055.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chair, I oppose Sec. 1094 of this bill. The language included in the underlying bill is dangerously vague, and allows contractors, or any entity that receives federal funds, to discriminate based on the faulty guise of religious exemption. Since ``religious corporation'' is undefined by the bill or by courts, this provision applies too broadly. Let's be clear--a ``religious corporation'' could range from a religious institution like a church to a corporation with a religious CEO. Therefore, any vaguely religious organization or corporation receiving federal funds could legally discriminate against LGBT Americans if they feel like hiring them violates their religious beliefs. A corporation with a religious CEO could decide not to hire, or to fire, LGBT people. A religious university could fire employees with no religious job requirement, such as a scientist or custodial worker, simply because they are LGBT. Tax-payer dollars should not be used to fund discrimination. Last year, I offered an amendment to the Transportation Appropriations Bill that affirmed President Obama's executive order prohibiting federal contractors from discriminating based on sexual orientation and gender identity. My amendment passed with a near super-majority, including 60 Republicans. I believe all of my colleagues can agree on these two things--the federal government should not infringe on religious freedom, nor should we do business with groups that discriminate. No American should be fired, denied a job or a place to live because of who they are or who they love. I urge my colleagues to stand on the side of equality and against discrimination and oppose this provision.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chair, today I rise to support a simple, but important effort that everyone in this chamber can agree on. My amendment adds to this bill a Sense of Congress that when practical and cost-effective, the DoD should seek ways to maximize the number of veterans employed to build military construction projects. Many members of this chamber, on both sides of the aisle, have stood on this floor and championed the cause of hiring veterans. It's a policy that we've incentivized private corporations to do, and criticized employers for not doing it, or doing improperly. It makes sense that if we are going to be good stewards of tax dollars, that we should encourage that money is used to hire veterans. We're talking about good jobs here--jobs that take valuable skills, determined initiative, and produce pride in a job well done. This is not intended to add any burden to the DoD or their military construction projects, but it's a reminder that oftentimes, we have skilled veteran laborers that live near these projects and are ideal candidates for the job. If Congress is going to continue its efforts to support our veterans as they transition out of the military and back into the civilian world, then voting in favor of this amendment is a no brainer. Support this amendment and join me in showing that our military readiness can often best be built by those who know how important that readiness is when fighting for our freedom.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chair, Iran is a chief sponsor of international terrorism and regularly threatens to obliterate Israel, our most important ally in the region. Those who supported the agreement last year to keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon understood that the JCPOA does not eliminate all of Iran's threats to the United States and our partners in the Middle East. My amendment would take further steps to support our allies in the region and crack down on Iranian aggression. By vocalizing our support for working with Israel, the Gulf Cooperation Council, Jordan, and Egypt to build an integrated missile defense system, we can build off of the success of Israel's existing missile defense network. I support the funding authorizations included in this year's defense budget that will continue to support Israel's missile defense program. Through a smart, targeted approach with our partners, we can continue to counter Iranian aggression and promote security. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, Cedar Bluff, Alabama, November 16, 2015: Sylvia Duffy, 71 years old. Clara Edwards, 68. Pamela O'Shel, 48. Tennessee Colony, Texas, November 15, 2015: Carl Johnson, 77 years old. Thomas Kamp, 46. Nathan Kamp, 23. Austin Kamp, 21. Kade Johnson, 6. Clarksburg, West Virginia, July 26, 2013: Freddy Donald Swiger, 70 years old. Fred Swiger, 47. Todd Russell Amos, 29. Christopher A. Hart, 26. Springfield, Missouri, November 15, 2014: Lewis Green, 44 years old. Trevor Fantroy, 43. Danielle Keyes, 29. Christopher Freeman, 24. Shreveport, Louisiana, May 5, 2016: Tyrone Coley, 37 years old. Randy Brown, 36. Robert Baulkman, 30. Joey Caldwell, 29. Richard Baker, 29. Platte, South Dakota, September 17, 2015: Nicole Westerhuis, 41 years old.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, I am also opposed to this amendment. The DOD's employment of alternative energy is not about hugging trees; it is about improving our mission capabilities and saving lives. The military's investments in alternative energy technologies not only make our troops safer and increase combat effectiveness, but they also reap government energy savings. Renewable energy systems reduce our reliance on foreign oil and have saved lives by cutting down on refueling trips in the battlefields. Around 3,000 American soldiers were killed or wounded in Afghanistan while protecting fuel convoys. The military is already adopting cutting-edge renewable energy technologies, like transportable solar panels and backpacks used by marines to generate electricity. Last August, I was at Naval Base Coronado when the Navy signed the largest renewable energy purchase by the Federal Government in history. The project will provide 210 megawatts of energy at an estimated savings of $90 million over the length of the contract. Since 2009, the department estimates that they have saved over $1 billion through renewable energy projects on installations. As we consider how to allocate the limited resources we have to support our servicemembers and keep Americans safe, it is counterproductive at best to prohibit the military from using funds on cost-saving alternative sources of energy and redirecting it toward mission priorities. A 21st century military with the capability to counter new and dynamic threats cannot be powered by the energy of yesterday. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposition.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment. In January of this year, the Pentagon issued a directive saying: ``The Department of Defense must be able to adapt current and future operations to address the impacts of climate change in order to maintain an effective and efficient U.S. military.'' This followed a DOD report to Congress released last July that said: ``Climate change is an urgent and growing threat to our national security, contributing to increased natural disasters, refugee flows, and conflicts over basic resources such as food and water . . . and the scope, scale, and intensity of these impacts are projected to increase.'' From 2006 to 2010, Syria experienced overwhelming refugee flows that DOD characterized as a climate-related security risk creating negative effects on human security and requiring DOD involvement and resources. In 2014, the Pentagon reported that the impacts of climate change may increase the frequency, scale, and complexity of future missions, while at the same time undermining the capacity of our domestic installation to support training activities. The readiness of our military depends on being able to train and equip the most advanced force in the world, but the threat of rising sea levels from escalating temperatures and melting icecaps could put dozens of military installations at risk. San Diego is home to the largest concentration of military forces in the world. With seven military installations in my district alone, rising sea levels, drought, and finding reliable energy sources all pose challenges. San Diego military installations are investing in energy security and increasing water and energy efficiency. We should not undermine those efforts. This amendment is an attempt by top politicians to prevent the Department of Defense, which is tasked with maintaining a strong military, keeping all Americans safe, and protecting our global interests from addressing what they call an urgent and growing threat to our own national security. But national defense is not about politics or ideology. It is about security, readiness, and continuing to field the most dynamic and effective military in the world. We cannot have that if we ignore science and the concerns of the brightest military minds in the United States of America. I oppose this reckless amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support two amendments that we have in the en bloc, the first on veteran hiring, a sense of Congress amendment. I rise to support a simple, but important effort that everyone in this Chamber can agree on. My amendment adds to this bill a sense of Congress that the Department of Defense should seek ways to maximize the number of veterans employed to build military construction projects. We are talking about good jobs here that can help our veterans make the transition to civilian life. In places like San Diego, we have already had a number of contractors employing highly skilled veterans to do this work. Many Members of this Chamber, on both sides of the aisle, champion the cause of hiring veterans. It is a policy we have incentivized the private sector to implement. I hope Members will support this amendment and join in showing that our military readiness can be built by those who know personally how important that readiness is when fighting for our freedom. I also want to speak on integrated missile defense. Mr. Chairman, Iran is a chief sponsor of international terrorism, and regularly threatens to obliterate Israel, our most important ally in the region. Those who supported agreement last year to keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon understood that the JCPOA does not eliminate all of Iran's threats to the United States and our partners in the Middle East. My amendment would take further steps to support our allies in the region and crack down on Iranian aggression. By vocalizing our support for working with Israel, the Gulf Cooperation Council, Jordan, and Egypt, to build an integrated missile defense system, we can build off of the successes of Israel's existing missile defense network. I support the funding authorizations included in this year's defense budget that will continue to support Israel's missile defense program. Through a smart, targeted approach with our partners, we can continue to counter Iranian aggression and promote security. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.