John Garamendi

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and lasting contributions of Mrs. Linda K. Mitrovich. A critical member of the environmental community, Mrs. Mitrovich leaves behind an indelible legacy of service and dedication to environmental conservation, both within her community and around the world. For over 30 years, Mrs. Mitrovich fought to protect our environment and ensure our beautiful natural landscapes are preserved for future generations. For 25 years, she served as President and Co-Founder of Solution Strategies, a firm that helps public- and private-sector clients create solutions and resolve conflicts for businesses, governments, communities, and the environment. Through her leadership in Solution Strategies, Mrs. Mitrovich was renowned for her unique ability to unite stakeholders with conflicting interests to achieve a common goal. Her unparalleled skills in policy negotiation. strategy development, and coalition building allowed her to accomplish critical milestones for the environmental community. In 2013, Mrs. Mitrovich co-founded Preservation Ranch, LLC, an organization focused on supporting and furthering the goals of conservation programs that support local economies. Preservation Ranch later established a partnership with the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, forming a groundbreaking pilot project that unites private and public lands under a conservation management program to directly benefit local communities. In addition to Mrs. Mitrovich's work in the private sector, she was instrumental in the environmental regulation space at both the state and federal levels. Her experience in the environmental regulatory arena included work with some of our country's most essential environmental laws, including the Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act. While exhibiting critical leadership in the environmental field, Mrs. Mitrovich also played a pivotal role in her local community. She served as City Councilwoman and Deputy Mayor of Poway, California, and served on numerous governmental boards and committees overseeing water in San Diego County and the state of California. She was also a Trustee of Whittier College, where she received her Bachelor of Arts, and her service to her community was recognized by the California State Government when she was honored as Woman of the Year by the State Senate and State Assembly. Mrs. Mitrovich's enduring spirit will live on in her family and the legacy of her work to preserve our environment. I would like to extend my deepest sympathies to Mrs. Mitrovich's loved ones. I know that they, along with the people of California's 8th Congressional District, join me in celebrating her life and legacy.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and commend Yuba Water Agency upon its completion of the Hallwood Side Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project. This outstanding achievement will safeguard local habitats and provide critical support to Yuba County's infrastructure. Due to decades of hydraulic gold mining, the Yuba River has faced ecological challenges that harm native fish species, including the chinook salmon and steelhead trout. The innovative Hallwood Side Channel and Floodplain Restoration project will restore fish habitats and reduce flood risk, reversing some of the most severe ecological challenges in the region. This project has successfully enhanced and restored 157 acres of floodplain habitat, including 1.7 miles of new side channels and more than 6 miles of seasonally inundated side channels, alcoves, and swales. These investments in the Yuba River will benefit its wildlife species, preserving this local habitat for future generations and taking a critical step towards protecting our community's environment and natural resources. On behalf of the constituents of California's Eighth Congressional District, I would like to congratulate Yuba Water Agency upon the completion of this essential project which will benefit Yuba River wildlife, the surrounding habitat, and the local community.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague Representative Beatty for her leadership. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this amendment to highlight the importance of the HOME Investment Partnership Program in meeting the needs of working families across America. Hardworking Americans deserve to have a house, and they deserve to have a home. We face drastic shortages of affordable housing in California and in most every other part of America. Housing costs have skyrocketed significantly, outpacing incomes. This is why the President's budget rightfully included $1.8 billion for the HOME Investment Partnership Program. This funding will help construction and rehabilitation of affordable rental housing as well as providing homeownership opportunities for working families. We must support the funding programs like HOME to ensure that every American has a home.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and commend TLC for Kids Sports, upon celebrating its 15th anniversary serving the Bay Area community. This outstanding achievement is a testament to the critical work that TLC for Kids Sports has accomplished to give every child the opportunity to safely participate in youth sports. Originally founded in 2009, TLC for Kids Sports is improving local communities and youth sports by transforming youth sports facilities in underserved neighborhoods. Its work across the Bay Area--including in Antioch, Martinez, and Richmond--helps ensure that every child, no matter where they live, can enjoy the countless benefits of team sports. TLC for Kids Sports is active in community outreach and frequently collaborates with local businesses and neighborhood volunteers, uniting participants in working toward the common goal of building a better future for our youth. Since its founding, over 5,000 volunteers have worked with TLC for Kids Sports to support communities in need and create safe environments where children can thrive. The fields built and restored by TLC for Kids Sports are places where our youth can learn sportsmanship, hard work, and confidence, empowering them with the knowledge and skills to build their future. TLC for Kids Sports plays a vital role in improving our communities, supporting our children, and giving youth the resources and space to grow. On behalf of the constituents of California's Eighth Congressional District, I would like to congratulate TLC for Kids Sports upon its 15th anniversary and extend my sincere gratitude for its years of service to the Bay Area community.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce a bill cosponsored by every California Democrat and the entire Nevada delegation renaming the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-506) in honor of the late U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). We recognize her legacy and leadership spanning more than three decades to Keep Tahoe Blue. Among her many accomplishments, Senator Feinstein secured more than $715 million in authorized federal funding under this landmark 2000 law to conserve Lake Tahoe and the surrounding basin for future generations. Senator Feinstein's 2016 amendments to this law provided new authorities for the U.S. Forest Service to combat wildfires across the Tahoe Basin. These authorities were first employed in combating the devastating Caldor Fire in 2021 and in the recovery since. Nobody in government has done more to Keep Tahoe Blue than Senator Feinstein. She organized the first annual Tahoe Summit in 1997, while I served as Deputy Secretary of the Interior during the Clinton Administration. The California and Nevada Senators have since rotated hosting the Tahoe Summit annually, which I have been honored to attend over the years. In 1999, Senator Feinstein sponsored the original Lake Tahoe Restoration Act, the companion of which by then-Congressman John T. Doolittle (R-CA) was enacted into law in the year 2000. In the 114th Congress, I was honored to sponsor the companion to Senator Feinstein's ``Lake Tahoe Restoration Act of 2015'' with then-U.S. Senator Dean Heller (R-NV), which was enacted into law the following year. Under the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (Division AA of Public Law 116-260), she worked with Congresswoman Dina Titus (D-NV), U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (D-CA), and me to authorize the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers new invasive species in alpine lakes pilot project to safeguard Lake Tahoe. Under the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (Title LXXXI of Public Law 117-263), she worked again with us to secure an additional $25 million in federal funding for restoration efforts across the Lake Tahoe Basin, such as restoration of the Upper Truckee River and Marsh. This past March, Senator Feinstein sponsored the ``Lake Tahoe Restoration Reauthorization Act of 2023'' with the entire Nevada delegation to provide an additional $415 million in federal funding until 2034. I can think of no better tribute to Senator Feinstein's decades of leadership to help conserve Lake Tahoe than passing this bipartisan reauthorization into law. I am deeply saddened by the passing of this amazing public servant, longtime friend, and treasured colleague. Senator Feinstein will be missed dearly, but her legacy will endure through the lives of the countless Californians she improved during her storied life and career. My colleagues and I from the California and Nevada delegations are honored to recognize Senator Feinstein's tireless advocacy for our public lands by sponsoring this bill to rename the landmark Lake Tahoe Restoration Act in her honor. Mr. Speaker, I encourage all members to join us in cosponsoring this bill.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer a critical amendment to pause wasteful and unnecessary spending at the Savannah River Plutonium Processing Facility. This is a responsible measure. It will pause the development of this nuclear facility while we fix the cost overruns and mismanagement associated with this. Given the rhetoric of the Republican side of the aisle about reining in excessive spending, this amendment should be something that we would all agree on. The estimated cost of the Savannah River facility tripled from $3.6 billion to nearly $11 billion since the start of the project. It will likely continue to increase since this program is not scheduled to be completed until 2035. According to the August Government Accountability Office report, it will probably be delayed even further until 2038. Why are we spending $11 billion on this wasteful facility? You would think it might be part of our critical national security, but that is not the case. For those unfamiliar with this facility, it is being built to produce plutonium pits, which is the core of a nuclear weapon. We already have thousands of these pits. Some will stand up here and say, oh, my. We need to replace them because they age out. These pits will last at least 100 years. Some studies by independent panels of scientists and academics have suggested that these pits have an even longer life cycle. That is why in the House-passed fiscal year 2024 NDAA, the House Armed Services Committee adopted my amendment for an independent assessment of plutonium-pit aging by experts. If we really care about responsible government spending, we must ensure there is a need before allocating billions of dollars to rebuild a stockpile that we already have in place and that really should never be used. To reiterate, this amendment is a pause on next year's spending because we really do need to evaluate the science. By the way, it is only $858 million, but hey, every dollar counts. This pause is essential, timely and a prudent step. In our haste to build new nuclear bombs, we must allocate those costs appropriately. A January 2023 GAO report found that the National Nuclear Security Administration lacks a comprehensive schedule or cost estimate on what we are doing here with this particular program. The NNSA has not even identified all of the activities or milestones to achieve an 80 pit per year production capacity. I am sure that some will argue, wrongly, in my view, that I am undermining national security. They will make exaggerated claims about the necessity to engage in a nuclear arms race. Well, we are, but the question is, are we doing it wisely? The answer is no. We are spending money unnecessarily and in an ill-advised way. As a citizen, I am also aware that we face challenges here at home. We have heard many of those. I also know that the new Speaker wants to rein in unnecessary expenditures. I would suggest that this is one. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chair, I have a pro forma amendment.

Mr. GARAMENDI. How many minutes do I have remaining, sir?

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I think I will take a deep breath. I was a little wound up a few moments ago. If the opposition to this amendment would like to go through that process of an additional 5 minutes, we will play that game, and I would actually appreciate doing that. There is a lot that we need to discuss here. There is a lot that this House needs to consider, and it is about the nuclear enterprise. It is about a 10-year mission that we have been on to rebuild our nuclear programs. One part of that nuclear program is a new nuclear bomb to be put on the new Sentinel rockets that replace the Minuteman III. A moment ago, I discussed the situation. Do we really need to spend $120 billion, $150 billion over the next decade to replace the Minuteman III and a new nuclear bomb? The answer is, we have time. We have time. As I said a few moments ago, the Minuteman III will work for a considerable period into the future, and the nuclear weapon that is presently on the Minuteman III is going to work for many more years. It is not aging out. It is perfectly reliable. What is this 87-1 all about? It is a new bomb. It, in fact, is the first new bomb that we have built in many years. Presumably, it will work better than the bomb that is presently on the Minuteman III and will be used on the new Sentinel rocket when it is ready to be placed into new silos upon which we will spend billions of dollars building the silos and the infrastructure. The 87-1, this brings us right back to the previous question that we had about plutonium pit production. Do we need additional pit production? I ask all of us to take a calendar, look at the years ahead, and begin to put in place the arrival of the new Sentinel, which will surely be at least a decade, if not longer. Then, look at the pit production that will be able to be put in place in Los Alamos, one a year, two, three, four, five. We will be stacking up new pits in Los Alamos well ahead of the need for this new weapon to be put on the Sentinel rocket. We will have an inventory of pits that would be used for the 87-1. What I am saying here in this amendment is, wait a minute. Take a look at the calendar. Take a look at the way these pieces fit together--billions of dollars in Savannah River to build nuclear pits that will not even be available for at least a decade and a half. Take a look at the pits we are producing and will be able to produce at Los Alamos and the stockpile of pits that would then be available for the timing of the 87-1, should we ever decide that we need it. We do not need to spend this money today on the 87-1 or on Savannah River. This is a pause. We heard the new Speaker stand right there and tell us that we have a deficit problem. We sure as hell do have a deficit problem. Part of it is how we spend our money. We ought to take a look at that. That is what these amendments are about. These amendments are about spending money unnecessarily now. We have things that we desperately need to do. We need to educate, to research, to be in competition economically with China. Yet, here we are. A small amount of money here, pause this expenditure. Pause it. We are not doing away with the 87-1, although that is another argument we might have someday. Right now, why are we spending this money today? Why? The new Speaker wants to deal with the deficit. Deal with this. Pause this expenditure. We have plenty of time to deal with this. For those who argue that this has something to do with our current national security, you are dead wrong because this will not be available for at least a decade, and you can argue whether we even need it then. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I have a question. I have a question about fairness in the debate. The chair of the subcommittee has offered two pro forma amendments, giving my side of the debate no opportunity whatsoever to respond to the issues that have been raised. Mr. Chairman, I am curious, is fairness out of order on this floor?

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I posed a question to the Chair. Does the Chair have an answer to my question? Is fairness out of order on this floor?

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chair, a parliamentary inquiry would be: Sir, how can I achieve, under the rules of the House, a fair debate with equal time on the issue? Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary question before the Chair. Fair is fair, guys.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, in an effort to achieve that consultation, sir, could the House provide me with information since I do not have before me the rules of the House. Perhaps they can provide me the rules of the House and I could read it, or perhaps the Chair can provide some advice on that particular section of the rules.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chair.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, if I might ask another parliamentary question, sir. As the author of this amendment, do I have the opportunity to propose 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 of those pro forma amendments?

Mr. GARAMENDI. Well, then let us get started.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, this House has always operated in a fair and evenhanded way. And I must say, the use of the pro forma amendment by my colleagues on the Republican side creates a very unfair debate, in which the points put forward in opposition to my amendment, I do not have time to deal with. However, I will take whatever time I have remaining and not spend much time on the necessity for fairness in the debate, which has a whole lot to do with the time available. Now, very, very quickly, since I have only a minute and some seconds left here. This is not an end to the plutonium pit production. What it says is to pause for 1 year, an $850 million expenditure on what has become not a plutonium pit but a dollar pit. Billions and billions of dollars have been spent on the Savannah facility, first, to somehow deal with the nuclear waste. That didn't work. It has been repurposed to build plutonium pits. The reality here is there will not be a pit built in Savannah River for at least a decade. So all of this chatter about the safety of this Nation is nonsense. The reality here is we have a money pit.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chair, apparently, we want a debate on the plutonium pit issue. Well, let it happen. Let's get some facts here. The 80 pits per year has little to do with nuclear arms, nuclear bombs, it has everything to do with a number that was invented by the committees of this House. So what are we going to do with these pits? First of all, the pits will not be built in Savannah River for at least a decade, and quite likely 15 years. Yes, perhaps they will in 15 years produce 50 pits per year. For what purpose? Specifically, now the pit production is taking place at Los Alamos National Laboratories, which is diligently and wastefully moving forward to produce 30 pits per year. The first pit at Savannah River--that is the war reserve pit--it is likely to be produced in 3 to 4 years from now, beginning at the rate of one a year and eventually moving to 30 per year, which will probably take a full decade and several billion dollars to do. What is that pit going to be used for? Maybe we ought to know before we start talking about the safety of this world and this Nation. The pits that are going to be built at Savannah River are specifically for a new nuclear bomb, the 87-1, which has not yet been produced. Presumably, that bomb will go on the new Sentinel missile, which in and of itself is $150 billion that we will spend to replace the Minuteman III missiles that are now in the silos in the upper Midwest. By the way, the Minuteman IIIs are perfectly good for at least another decade, so why are we spending that money? Presumably because we decided a decade ago that we ought to do it and that somehow the Minuteman III missiles wouldn't continue to work. In a recent test this year, the Minuteman III worked perfectly well, and there has been no indication that the Minuteman III missile cannot continue to work perfectly well for the next decade or more. We have not yet calculated the full cost of replacing the Minuteman III with the new Sentinel program, but the estimates are well over $150 billion. For what purpose? To make us safer? No. It won't make us safer at all. By the way, what bomb will be put on the Sentinel while we await the 87-1? Guess what it is? It is the existing bomb that we have on the Minuteman III. That new weapon, the 87-1, is at least a decade away, and the cost is unknown, but you had better get your billion dollars together because it will surely be in that range. We need a debate about all of this. This is not about national security. This is about a new nuclear arms race that puts humanity on this planet in serious jeopardy. We have quite enough weapons to deter anybody from using a nuclear weapon, and yes, so do China and Russia. This is about deterrence. How many bombs, how many weapons, how many delivery systems are necessary for deterrence? If it is a war, yes, all three countries have quite enough to terminate life on this planet. We don't need more to achieve a victory in a nuclear war. We have quite enough already. We can target wherever we need to target--in China, in Russia, wherever. We have quite enough for that. As a deterrent, we have quite enough for deterrence. Yes, Putin rattled the nuclear saber. To what effect? What effect did his rattling achieve? Nothing.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I hereby remove my name as a cosponsor of H.R. 3721.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, later today, we are going to be taking up an extraordinary piece of legislation and voting on whether this Nation is going to be all in on a new nuclear arms race or whether we are going to modulate and think about what it is that we are funding. We are basically going to be funding the potential destruction of all that exists on this planet. I will also address the House on an issue that occurred yesterday in Maine. Another assault weapon was used to murder at least 16 people, with perhaps another 50 being wounded. It is time for this House to act on extending the previous ban on assault weapons. This has nothing to do with the Second Amendment. This has everything to do with war on the American people.