Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2014

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GARAMENDI. The rapidity with which this process is moving, we might be dealing with the Transportation rather than the Energy and Water appropriations; therefore, my amendment apparently passed without an opportunity to present it.

We just heard our colleague from Oregon speak to the issue of flooding. I represent 200 miles of the Sacramento River, yet this bill ignores the need for this Congress to protect human life. This bill spends $7.67 billion on nuclear weapons and cuts the money for levee protection.

Human life is at risk in my district, and yet this bill ignores the reality of flooding. When a flood occurs in my district, it's not in the summertime; it is not warm water. It is very, very cold water and thousands of lives are at risk. Yet the majority cannot seem to find the money necessary to protect human life, but plenty of money for nuclear weapons. Is this the priority, $7.6 billion for nuclear weapons and not enough money to protect the lives of the citizens of this Nation from real danger, real floods? It's really going to happen, gentlemen and ladies of the majority.

The Corps of Engineers' budget is decimated, and for the last 3 years we have not been able to get one new project even though human life is at risk. Is that the priority? Apparently, human life is not.

Projects in my district: the Hamilton project for the last 3 years has been in the President's budget, yet no New START prohibitions place us in a dangerous situation in my district. Apparently, we need more nuclear weapons but not more levees. Is that the majority's position? $7.6 billion for nuclear weapons, and not enough for a $15 million project to protect the citizens of Hamilton City. You should be ashamed that that's your priority.

This particular appropriation bill is an abomination. It is a disgrace. It is a representation of the wrong priorities. But yet that's what you want to do. I suppose if this had not been a railroad and you weren't moving things so fast, I would have had an amendment opportunity to simply say that New START vital to the life and well-being of citizens in this Nation should be in this bill, but I didn't have a chance to do that because of the railroad you're operating here.

Run it as you will, but at the end of the day there will be human life at stake, at risk, and, quite likely--quite likely--floods in the 200 miles of the Sacramento River and its tributary that I represent.

This is wrongheaded. This is wrong. Your priorities could not be worse. You should be ashamed that this is the priority you put. Levees will not be built. Human life will be at risk. But, presumably, that's what you want.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GARAMENDI. I would be happy to address my comments through the Chair.

Madam Chair, the priorities that are in this bill are dead wrong. Natomas in Sacramento, 20-foot potential water in the wintertime, with the water temperature somewhere in the 40 to 50 degree range, perhaps human life can last 10 minutes--maybe--but that's the priority.

Hamilton City, the same situation. Yuba City, Marysville, the same situation. A winter storm in California and a levee break is deadly. This is not New Orleans, where you can stay in the water for a few hours. This is cold water temperature. And yet, Madam Chair, the majority's position is to build more nuclear weapons and not to build levees.

When the flood occurs, and it will, what will happen? Could we not take $100 million out of the nuclear weapons account and put it into the levees account in the Army Corps of Engineers? Apparently not.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GARAMENDI. Madam Chair, a few moments ago, I talked about priorities; $7.6 billion plus for nuclear weapons.

We just heard the gentleman discuss the issue of locks and levees and ports, projects in my district for the ports, for deepening the channels, for rebuilding and expanding. The economic activity in this Nation is not going to be funded.

Do we really need to spend an additional $7.6 billion-plus on nuclear weapons when we have over 8,000 of them--Russia 7,000, China 250--do we really need to spend the money there, or do we need to spend it on our economic activity, as the gentleman just said?

There is not enough money in the Corps of Engineers' budget to provide for all of the ports, all of the improvements that are needed, so that our ports on the west coast, the east coast, gulf coast can be competitive. Apparently, we have enough money.

Why don't we take some money out of this program and put it where it will be immediately beneficial? It's a matter of priorities. Where your money is is where your heart is. Okay. That's not where my heart is.

You talked about all-of-the-above energy. We ought to talk about all-of-the-above energy. Yet, ARPA-E, where we create the new science, the new technology, the new programs that will provide us with new energy sources, improved energy sources, and the improvement of all energy sources--gutted, gutted; an 87 percent reduction. The Office of Science, where we do real research, where we really can do all-of-the-above, whether it is coal or oil or renewables--gutted; a 73 percent reduction.

Where are our priorities? Where are the priorities of the House of Representatives? Is it to build more nuclear weapons that by the grace of God we will never use--8,000 of them? Or is it to build a levee? Or is it to make sure the researchers at our universities and laboratories have the money that they need to really deal with the problem of the future, which is climate change?

It's about priorities.

Madam Chair, it's about priorities, and through you, of course, I ask my colleagues: What are the priorities? They are listed very clearly in your legislation.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source