Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2014

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GARAMENDI. I think the gentleman who is proposing the amendment is missing some major points.

Before a wind energy project can continue or go into effect, it has to meet very stringent environmental requirements. Those environmental requirements, among other things, deal specifically with all types of birds. I will tell you that, in my current district and in my previous district, I had the major wind farms in California, and no project was allowed to go forward without addressing these issues. Under the Endangered Species Act, it is possible for incidental takes to take place if there is appropriate mitigation, and I know from the projects in my area that there had to be appropriate mitigation.

The modern wind turbines are far different than the old wind turbines, which were, in fact, deadly to birds. The modern wind turbines are far less so. And if there is an incidental take of a listed species, it can only occur with proper and appropriate mitigation.

The author's reference to the issue of a longtime take opportunity only occurs if there happens to be an adaptive management program in place that allows the Fish and Wildlife Service and other appropriate agencies to review the process and progress, or lack thereof, and apply different measures or stop the projects at that time.

So I would oppose the amendment. I think it is based upon incorrect facts. And I join the chairman in opposition.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GARAMENDI. Madam Chair, I want to commend the staff, the Chair, the ranking member, and all of those who have worked so hard over the last couple of days to get this bill processed and to deal with all the amendments. It's been an arduous task and one that has created, I am told, far more amendments than have ever been presented on any such appropriation bill in the past.

And there's a reason for that. The reason is that this appropriation bill is a direct result of the, what we fondly call--or not so fondly call--the Ryan Republican budget. This is really the first opportunity that America has to see the effects of a very austere budget, one that really decimates programs all across America, programs that are of great value and great utility.

This particular subcommittee was presented with the mark, that is, the amount of money that it had available to it as a result of that budget that was passed by the majority in this House. Now, that budget's not law. There has been no conference committee. In fact, the majority in this House has refused to set up a conference committee, that is, to put in names for that conference committee. So this is really a one-House budget that is being carried out here with this legislation.

It is a remarkable and an extraordinarily important moment in which the American public has a chance to see exactly what austerity, as presented to us by the majority, means. It means that those research programs that allow America the opportunity to advance its energy programs, to take control of the energy programs of the future, the renewable energy programs, the nuclear energy programs, and on and on, those opportunities are lost.

I know the committee was faced with a very stringent budget, an austerity budget. They made decisions that are, in my view, extraordinarily detrimental to America. Specifically, the committee--the majority, that is--made a decision to take the money that was available and remove it from those programs that are the energy future of this Nation--wind, solar, conservation, biofuels, automobiles that are efficient, houses that are efficient, programs that are absolutely crucial to this Nation's future and to the world's future because they deal specifically with climate change--and move money from those programs to the Nuclear Weapons program and to programs that are not needed.

Consider for a moment that the United States has over 5,500 nuclear bombs, which are sufficient to end life on this planet. It's over if those were to be used. And the military says we don't need them. These are programs that are inefficient, ineffective, and are the sinkholes of American taxpayers' money. The majority decided to move the money there. Okay. Who are we going to use those things on? We can't. We don't need them for deterrence. But yet that's where the money goes. Not only does the money come from those energy programs that we absolutely need for our future and for our economy's future, the money comes from programs that are absolutely essential for the well-being of Americans today and tomorrow.

The Army Corps of Engineers protects our citizens with its levees and with its flood control projects. We've heard this over and over again for the last 2 days. And yet the majority continues to insist to spend the money on these nuclear weapons, not on those things that are essential for today's life and essential for the well-being of people now, as the storm season arrives here on the east coast with hurricanes, in the Gulf States with hurricanes, and in my State of California, in my district, where I have more than 1,500 miles of levees. People are at risk.

This amendment would take $100 million from these weapons systems and put that money directly into the Army Corps of Engineers Construction account so that the Army Corps of Engineers can protect our citizens today.

I ask for an ``aye'' vote on this amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source