Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2017
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
About an hour ago, this House of Representatives kicked off a new quarter in the ongoing California water war. This House passed a piece of legislation that will ultimately gut the Endangered Species Act; the Clean Water Act; the biological opinions protecting salmon and smelt; the health of the largest estuary on the West Coast of the Western Hemisphere, the San Francisco Bay; and salmon up and down the Pacific Coast.
This amendment is designed to stop the ultimate threat to the California Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and San Francisco Bay. The ultimate threat is the twin tunnels that are being proposed by the Brown administration, tunnels that are sized at 15,000-cubic-feet-per- second capacity, tunnels that have the capability to take half or take all of the water out of the Sacramento River.
Six months of the year, the Sacramento River flows somewhere between 12,000 and 18,000 cubic feet per second. These tunnels, if ever built, will be capable of literally sucking the Sacramento River dry and destroying the largest estuary on the West Coast of the Western Hemisphere.
This amendment is designed to protect the delta by denying the State of California the opportunity to use the Federal Government to build such a destructive system. We don't need that system.
There are solutions to the delta problem. There are solutions that are capable of addressing the water issues of California. They have been proposed for many, many years. But this particular proposal that has been on the books for, now, nearly half a decade is the ultimate vampire ditch that will suck the Sacramento River dry and destroy the largest estuary on the West Coast of the Western Hemisphere. It is not needed. It is, at a minimum, a $15 billion boondoggle that will not create 1 gallon of new water. It will only destroy. It will be the ultimate death.
Some day, what was proved here in the House of Representatives not more than an hour ago, some day the votes will be there both in the House of Representatives and in the Senate and a bill will be sent to the President that will not be able to be vetoed. We will see the death of the largest estuary, the most important estuary on the West Coast of the Western Hemisphere from Alaska to Chile. There is no other place like this.
The solutions are known. They have been proposed. They have been out there. Build the infrastructure.
I have introduced a bill that would provide the Federal Government to work with the State government, in proposition 1 at the State level, to bring into harmony reservoirs, underground aquifers, conservation, recycling, desalinization, community water supplies.
It is in the legislation. It is available to us today. All of that, without destroying the delta and also operating it in such a manner that we let science determine what to do--not legislation, not legislation here, not the desire of the Governor of California, but, rather, science.
Where are the fish? Are they going to be harmed? Ramp the pumps down. If they are not going to be harmed, then turn the pumps on--very simple. But the solution that passed the House today doesn't do that. Oh, it gives some bypassing words to the Endangered Species Act, to the biological opinions. But, in reality, what it does, it says turn the dam pumps on anyway. Let them rip. Let them destroy the delta.
This bill speaks to the second threat to the delta--not the legislation that was passed today, but the issue that is before the California voters in November, the issue that is before the California Legislature and others today--and that issue is: Should the tunnels be built?
The tunnels must never be built. They must never be built because they are the ultimate existential threat to the delta. With their size, 15,000 cubic feet per second, they are perfectly capable of taking all of the water out of the Sacramento River half of the year. Don't ever build something that is so destructive.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I have amendment No. 29 at the desk.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I believe this is known as amendment 116.
I think most of us should be aware that we are well into the first quarter of a new nuclear arms race this time with not only Russia, but with China. And perhaps there are some others out there that would like to build nuclear weapons and armaments.
This amendment goes directly to one of the critical parts of that arms race, which is the development of what is essentially a new nuclear bomb. Some would like to say it is simply a refurbishment of an older weapon, and I guess you can get away with that if you stretch the words a bit.
But this is the W80-4 nuclear bomb. It is the warhead that will go on the new cruise missile, sometimes called the LSRO. It is a very expensive proposition.
This particular budget calls for $240 million to be spent this year on the early stages of the refurbishment. We are probably looking at twice that level of funding over the next decade to develop a few hundred of these weapons or these bombs.
We need to wake up. We need to be paying attention to this trillion- dollar enterprise. Over the next 25 years, we will be spending $1 trillion on a new nuclear arms race.
To what effect? Well, some would say that what we have is old and we ought to have something that is new. Well, what is old actually continues to work for many, many years.
So it is not just the nuclear bombs that will be refurbished or rebuilt or life-extended or whatever words you want to use, but they are new and are extraordinary expensive and, obviously, extraordinarily dangerous.
We are going to develop an entire new array of delivery systems. Discussed on the House floor not so long ago in debate was the question of whether we ought to have new intercontinental ballistic missiles in the silos in the upper Midwest. It was an interesting debate. The result of the debate was, well, we ought to build new ICBMs for those silos without paying too much attention to the cost, and we ought to have a whole new array of nuclear-armed submarines, a new Stealth Bomber, and a new cruise missile.
So what are we talking about here? A trillion dollars. At the same time, we debate on the floor whether we have any money for Zika. Apparently, we don't; although that is a real threat, and it is real today. We talk about our community water systems, and we don't have any money for those either. I will tell you where the money is. It is in this nuclear arms race.
It is not about disarmament. Nobody is suggesting that. It is about are we going to spend all this money and perpetuate what is already underway without giving thought to the impact it is going to have on the things that we know we must do--educate our children, provide the infrastructure for our communities, our water, our sanitation systems, and our transportation systems--or are we going to go about building new nuclear bombs.
Apparently, that is what we are going to do because there is $240 million right here, money that we didn't have available for Zika, money that we don't have for the water systems of Flint, Michigan, or our own State of California. But it is here.
The W80--keep that number in mind, ladies and gentlemen. You are going to see that coming back before you as we appropriate more and more dollars for not only this new nuclear bomb, but for many others.
So I draw your attention to this issue. I ask that we move about $100 million of this money out of this nuclear bomb that we really don't need for another decade. We don't need it tomorrow. We may never need it. It won't be on any piece of equipment for at least a decade. So why don't we spend this money on our communities? Why don't we spend it on Flint, Michigan? Why don't we spend it on the communities in Central Valley, California, that we have heard so much about?
There are communities that don't have water systems, communities in the San Joaquin Valley that we heard so much about just a moment ago where the children have to take their water out of a horse water trough, not out of a tap.
No, we are going to spend our money building a new nuclear bomb. I think that is wrong. I think it is not necessary. In fact, I know it is not necessary. But that is what we are going to do.
So I ask you to make a choice, to make a choice to spend our money on what we need today: clean water systems, transportation, and education, not on a new nuclear bomb.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GARAMENDI. I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source