John Garamendi

Mr. GARAMENDI

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.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I have amendment No. 29 at the desk.

Mr. GARAMENDI

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

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

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

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chair, with great respect for my friend from South Carolina, who is a most able advocate for his neighborhood, the MOX facility is the ultimate sinkhole for Federal dollars. In fact, there is a viable alternative, and there are quite possibly two different viable alternatives. One is the Russian fast reactor. We have our own fast reactor. It clearly is disposing of the plutonium stockpile in Russia and creating energy along the way that they are using. We also have our own fast reactor systems that have been built in the past, and they could be viable and could be located at the Savannah River facility to dispose of the plutonium. We are going to need to come to some conclusion here. This is a debate that we really must have. The Senate has two different versions, and the House has two different versions about what to do. Maybe the gentleman and I could wrestle and we could decide which one is the version we would actually take on here. This does not stop the facility. It simply says to stop construction, use the money to look at designs, use the money to look for ongoing solutions, which the gentleman, I believe, is incorrect. But if he is right, it could be the MOX facility. But we need to solve this problem. It is a very, very serious problem. We are required by a treaty with Russia to dispose of our unused plutonium, which is another amendment that I will take up at the end of the day, but I will talk about that much later tonight.

Mr. GARAMENDI. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chair, all of us can get pretty excited about water in California, and I see my colleagues from the San Joaquin Valley and beyond who are lined up here to protest what has happened over this last year. There is no doubt that in this last year the rainy season didn't work for anybody. We can find a solution if we base that solution on solid science, if we base it on the realtime monitoring of where the fish are. I know there is a monitoring provision in this bill. Also, this particular bill, as written, would push aside the environmental protections and simply allow the pumps to be turned on even with the monitoring. What we really need to do is to base the delta operation on the realtime monitoring of where the species are and then adjust the pumps accordingly. There is a solution. My colleague, Mr. McNerney, just talked in detail about the necessity of building additional infrastructure for water. We need Sites Reservoir in the northern part of the State. We need to rebuild the San Luis Reservoir, and the Los Banos Grandes needs to be built. We need to build the infrastructure, the recycling, and all of the other things. We do not need to take, as this bill does, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, and the biological opinions and push them out of the way and just allow the pumps to turn on. That is not a solution. That is a solution for the destruction of the largest estuary on the west coast of the Western Hemisphere. I don't doubt for a moment the sincerity of my colleagues from the San Joaquin Valley and from southern California. They are sincere about the concern, and we share that concern. 300,000 acres of my rice farm didn't get planted this last year because of the drought. We also know the damage that a drought can do, but there is a way of solving this problem. This is not the bill. This bill will set off a war. Obviously, we are already at it here on the floor of the House. Let's put this aside. Let's sit down, as we can do, and develop a solution that keeps in place the environmental laws and allows the flexibility that is present within those laws to be used to the maximum extent and not push the laws and the biological opinions out of the way to the detriment of the largest estuary on the west coast of the Western Hemisphere. It is critical for salmon and other species in the ocean as well as for the agriculture in the delta and the 4 million or 5 million people who depend upon that water from the delta. I ask my colleagues to work with all of us, and I will take the chair of the subcommittee up on his offer. I will take the gentleman up on his offer and sit down with him, and we will work this out, but not in this way, at this moment on this floor, with a bill that really does gut the environmental laws and that guts the environmental species as well as the Clean Water Act.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, about an hour and a half ago we had a very important debate on this floor concerning some 30-plus metric tons of unused surplus plutonium to be disposed of in South Carolina at the mixed oxide fuel facility. The debate went on. I want to thank my colleagues on the majority side for elucidating the issue and bringing to our attention, as did I, that we have some 34 metric tons of plutonium lying around in various depositories around the United States. And from our discussion earlier, it is pretty clear it is not going to be disposed of any time soon. Now, this bill would set about the United States putting together facilities that would create even more plutonium somewhere in the range of 80 nuclear bomb pits. This is the essential element in a nuclear bomb. For what purpose? Well, we really probably can't talk about it here in this public setting, but it appears to be a rather unclear purpose as to why we would need to build a new facility at a multibillion dollar cost for the production of more plutonium pits when we have 34 metric tons of them sitting in various repositories. So I guess I just kind of ask: Why are we doing that? Well, this amendment would simply limit the PF-4 facility in Los Alamos, New Mexico, to no more than 10 pits a year, which they can produce. Probably a little bit of refurbishing will be necessary as the years progress, but we really do not need to spend a few billion dollars on a brand-new facility to make brand-new atomic bomb plutonium pits. Why would we do that? Well, I don't think we do need to do that. We can get by with 10 a year. And I suppose, if we really got into a situation where we need to build more, we could run 2 shifts a day, maybe even 3 shifts a day, and get production up to some 20. Nobody has really bothered to explain in detail why we need more than 10, and certainly nobody has explained in detail why we need 80. So that is what this amendment does. It simply says: Let's save our money. Let's not put it into a facility that we don't need and go about our business of making just 9 or 10 new nuclear plutonium pits a year. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, welcome to California water wars, Members of Congress. Here we are again, back to our water war. We need to solve the problem of the delta, but you don't do it by gutting the environmental protections of the delta. Have no doubt about it. This is another water war in California that we do not need. What we need is some wise legislation that actually can solve the problem. Gutting the Endangered Species Act, overriding the biological opinions, taking away the Clean Water Act, and simply turning the pumps on is not a solution. It is, in fact, the death knell of the delta. Along with Governor Brown's twin tunnels, it will destroy the delta. So let's not go that way. Let's find the right solution in which science-- that is the realtime monitoring of what is happening in the delta--is how we determine whether to ramp up or to reduce the pumping in the delta. That is not in this bill. Take a look at the opponents here. We have the two delta interests, Mr. McNerney and I. We have the San Joaquin Valley interests. Gentlemen and ladies, welcome to California water wars. This is not the way to handle it--not in an appropriation, not in a bill that guts the environmental protections and simply turns the pumps on.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chair, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, 2 minutes is probably insufficient to persuade my colleagues on the majority side that my argument is worthy of support; but nonetheless, I will take a shot at it. We can build 9 or 10 pits a year now. If we go to two shifts, we could build 20. The only reason we would need 80 has to do with a revamped, refurbished nuclear bomb, which I will talk about tomorrow morning, because at the request of the majority, I was asked to put it off until tomorrow morning. In any case, where are we today? We have enough nuclear weapons to pretty much destroy the entire world or any enemy that would like to take us on. Do we need to have 80 new nuclear pits a year? In all the testimony I have heard in the various classified sessions, the answer is: We would like to have it. We would like to have that capability because sometime maybe somehow we may have a nuclear war, and we will expend all of our existing bombs and we will need to somehow make more. I am not exactly sure why we would be making more after a nuclear war, but there are some who would argue that would be necessary. I don't get it. I really don't understand when we have the capability to build sufficient nuclear bomb components, the pit, the plutonium pit, why we would want to spend a few billion dollars--an unknown number, by the way, not unlike the MOX facility, it is likely to rapidly escalate. But our Los Alamos scientists would like to have something new and fancy when something old is quite necessary. My wife always said that there is a choice between nice and necessary. I have yet to hear the argument for necessary, why we should set our path on spending several billion dollars on a new pit production facility. I am sure there is some argument to be made. In any case, I have a sense that I might lose this vote on the floor when I will ask for a vote. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just heard the most interesting discussion a few moments ago about highly enriched uranium. In fact, we are in the process of spending several billions of dollars in rebuilding our highly enriched uranium facility so that we can produce more nuclear weapons. The subject of this amendment is about old nuclear weapons. We have some 30-plus metric tons of unused plutonium that is sitting in various storage facilities around the United States. We have designed, in an agreement with Russia, to dispose of about 30 metric tons of that plutonium, and Russia has agreed to dispose of a little bit more than we are going to dispose of. This was all supposed to be done at the Mixed Oxide Fuel Facility in South Carolina, at the Savannah River facility. It is going to cost about a billion dollars back in 2001. The estimate in 2014 was $7.7 billion. And in 2015, the estimate is some $30 billion, and most people say it isn't going to work. So we have sinkholes for money, and we have black holes for money. And this is the ultimate black hole into which perhaps $30 billion will be spent. And, at the end of the day, it will probably create more problems and not solve the problem of the 30-or-so metric tons of plutonium that actually came out of various bombs that have been dismantled over the last several years. So why are we continuing? In the appropriation bill, it calls for $340 million to be spent on construction of a facility that the Department of Energy says shouldn't be built. But, hey, we are the Congress and we can throw around $340 million with great aplomb and not even worry about it. So this is a very simple amendment. It doesn't save us the $340 million, which is what we really ought to do. What this amendment really does is say: don't spend it on further constructing this useless--well, not useless--but totally expensive facility, the MOX facility. Don't waste the money on this boondoggle. And we can spend the money on maybe what the Department of Energy thinks we ought to do, which is to dilute and dispose or maybe we could build a fast reactor, which we actually have built in the past and which Russia is actually using to dispose of its plutonium. They are generating energy in doing so while disposing of their unused plutonium. So why don't we just accept this amendment and eliminate the construction clause? Keep the $340 million in South Carolina so that they could be happy and maybe they could spend it on something that might actually work. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman from South Carolina is correctly concerned about the expenditure of money. I would suggest to him that this study is a waste of the expenditure of money by the GAO and, hence, the taxpayers of the United States. Studies about the MSP have been available over many, many years; and in fact, there is now, in the Office of Management and Budget, a comprehensive study that was commissioned by the Assistant Secretary of the Navy. The gentleman can certainly contact OMB and get that study and, quite probably, get all the information he is going to request in this particular analysis and, furthermore, not have to waste taxpayer money in the process. I would point out to the gentleman a statement that was made on January 17 of this year concerning the MSP program by General Darren McDew, commander of US TRANSCOM. This is the guy who is responsible for moving men, women, materiel, and equipment around the world. He said: ``Our overwhelming success was due in large part to the 10,000 U.S. mariners who sped 220 shiploads of decisive U.S. combat power throughout the buildup known as Operation Desert Shield. Without those mariners and vessels, our ability to project decisive force and demonstrate our national resolve would have been a mere fraction of what was required to ensure the swift victory the world witnessed. Simply put, moving an army of decisive size and power can only be accomplished by sea,'' and the MSP is the central part of that. We don't need this study. What we need is strong support for the MSP. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time. In Desert Storm I, back in the 1990s, a ship that was manned by Pakistanis was loaded at the docks, began to sail, and turned around because the crew refused to go into that zone. We cannot allow that to happen ever again. The MSP was started specifically to provide that kind of sealift power that we need to move our men, materiel, and equipment, wherever they may be needed in the world. It does us little good to spend $680 billion on a Defense appropriation bill and not be able to get where the trouble is. Do away with the MSP, and that is where you are headed with this, moving toward foreign flags and, indeed, Maersk is operated by a foreign country, but it is licensed to operate in the United States with American sailors on American ships for the MSP program. We don't need to waste money on this. The studies are available dating back to 2006, 2009, and, more recently, with the OMB study. We don't need to waste our money. We need to get on with supporting the MSP program. I ask for a ``no'' vote. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, that is the first time I have ever heard that expenditure by the House of Representatives is not taxpayer money, but I guess some people can claim that. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes).

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chair, yes, we would surely like to do what my colleague suggests. However, it does leave us rather vulnerable to terrorism, terrorism that would be carried out by those who might want to get their hands on highly enriched uranium or other elements to either make a bomb or to create a dirty bomb. The money comes from a very, very important fund, a fund that the National Nuclear Security Administration uses to secure loose nukes and highly enriched uranium and other kinds of material that might be used in making a bomb. It would be wonderful if we could carry out what our colleague would like to do for the surface-to-air missiles. I mean, those are important. But don't take the money from this account. This account is extremely important in preventing the proliferation of nuclear materials as well as how we need to convert those reactors around the world, including here in the United States, that are capable of producing plutonium and highly enriched uranium. I don't have a problem with where the gentleman tends to augment the surface-to-air missile defense program or the air-to-surface program but, rather, from where he is taking, the account. I would suggest to the gentleman that we would be far better off finding a different place, one that has far less risk to us. The terrorists are out there. They are looking to get their hands on this kind of fissile material, and they will be able to do so unless we use the money in this program from the National Nuclear Security Administration, atomic agency, to secure these sites and materials.

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

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chair, this is most assuredly not a disarmament. We are scheduled to spend a trillion dollars on this kind of program. It is hardly a disarmament. We are talking about $17.9 million; yet, this nuclear security program is a trillion over the next 25 years. It is hardly a disarmament. The reality is that this money is not needed now. This money is going to be reprogrammed by the Air Force to be spent next year--without our authority, but I suppose with summary programing authority--when we know that the Air Force has C-17s, C-130s, and other large aircraft that can be shot out of the sky now, not in 2028 and beyond, but now. Are we unwilling to protect our airmen and -women that are on these airplanes? This is not disarmament. This is about protecting the men and women that are flying dangerous missions into Afghanistan, into Iraq, into other places where the terrorists do have MPADS and can shoot them out of the sky. Don't give me that business that this has something to do with disarmament. This has to do with protecting the men and women that are flying our large aircraft and giving them the protection that they need. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, every day men and women from Travis Air Force Base fly the big C-17s and C-130s and other heavy, large aircraft into harm's way in Iraq, Afghanistan, and over and around Syria. Every day they are at risk. They are at risk from being shot down by a shoulder-fired missile. There is a defense for this. It is called the Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasures defense system. It is one of the unfunded requests that the Air Force has made of us. This amendment would fund at least part of that request and provide a higher level of safety to the men and women in the Air Force that fly these large aircraft into harm's way. I don't think there is one of us here on the floor, in the House, or even in the Senate that would deny that flying these aircraft into the airfields of Afghanistan, even into Bagram, and certainly into Baghdad, is always safe. It is not. There is a proliferation of these shoulder-fired MPADS, and they are increasingly available to the bad guys, who our men and women are trying to take out. So we are looking here to move $17-plus million from an account that is not needed--at least, the money is not needed at this time--over to something that is desperately needed, a defensive system for our large Air Force aircraft, removing the money from the new Minuteman IV intercontinental ballistic missile program, which is not scheduled to be fielded until 12 years from now, and taking that just short of $18 million out of that account and moving it over so that our pilots and crew members can be safer. We don't need that money for these new intercontinental ballistic missiles that are 12 years away. What we need is to protect our men and women today with Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasures equipment. That is what this is all about. It is pretty simple. It is a matter of choices: do we choose to protect our men and women today or augment a program that doesn't need the money, according to the GAO. I choose to protect our men and women today and not to fund a program that the GAO says doesn't need this $17.9 million. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Steve W. Crandall, who passed away peacefully surrounded by family and friends on November 24, 2015. Steve served in the United States Navy during the Vietnam War on the USS Sperry. After his service, Steve met his first wife Carol and they had two sons together, Steven and Shane. In 1976, Steve married his lifelong partner Cathy. Together, they raised Michael, Steven, and Scot. Steve loved sports and being outdoors. Steve enjoyed fishing, hunting, boating and camping with his family. Steve played softball, bowled in leagues and won a couple golf tournaments through Raley's. Steve enjoyed volunteering his time coaching little league and always encouraged his boys in sports. Through the years, Steve worked hard for his family. Steve worked for the Retail Clerks Union for over 20 years, was a co-owner of Aqua Magic, a carpet cleaning and restoration business and a garbage man with Recology until he was diagnosed with diabetes in 1999. Steve had many medical struggles through the rest of his years but he was always happy to see you and his positive personality was impossible to miss. Steve's sanctuary was at the golf course. Thereafter, he worked at Green Tree Golf Club for approximately 12 years. Steve cherished his time there. Whether it was spending time with his friends, driving his beloved dog Sam around in the cart, teaching his sons and grandsons how to golf, or of course, working on the Course, he loved every day. Steve always wanted to make you smile. We will miss his ``slightly exaggerated'' stories and his tall tales. We will miss the way he lit up a room when he walked in. We will miss his kind and generous heart. Steve was preceded in death by his parents Glen and Iva Lee Crandall. Steve is survived by his loving wife Cathy, his sons Michael, Steve, Scot, Shane and their families. Sister Debbe Allen, four nieces and their families, as well as a dear ``Papa'' to nine Grandchildren.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, we rise to recognize and honor the members of the Winters Middle School Art Class for their contribution to the designation ceremony of the Berryessa Snow Mountain Monument by President Barack Obama on July 10, 2015. This outstanding accomplishment was made possible the tireless work of countless advocates. Their commitment to engaging friends, colleagues, local residents, businesses, stakeholders across the country, and policymakers in a coordinated effort to achieve permanent protection was critical to the establishment of the Monument. Now, the Berryessa Snow Mountain Monument may be counted among the hundreds of pristine parks across the country that represent America's most treasured public resources. The region's unique geological formations will play host for the world's scientists for years to come. Centuries-old archeological sites will draw curious historians and researchers as they piece together the stories of generations past. And avid bikers, hikers, campers, horsemen and women and sportsmen and women will be able to enjoy this landmark that is now forever open and accessible to outdoor enthusiasts from Northern California and beyond. The Berryessa Snow Mountain Monument serves as proof of the value of the Antiquities Act and the power of the Executive to protect these lands in the face of inaction by Congress. After extensive input from interested parties and substantial evidence of this region's value, the Obama Administration honored the support of stakeholders, and the gravity of conservation. The legacy of public lands is one of the most important we can leave for future generations. The Berryessa Snow Mountain Monument is a critical piece of a preservation system that stretches from the Hawaiian Islands to the Maine Coast. We'd like to recognize the students of the Winters Middle School Art Class--Madison Duarte, Cinthia Garnica, Amaya Jimenez, Yesenia Rodriguez, Montana Maggenti, Victor Ayala, Leiayla Juarez, Jozlyn Rooney, Sofia Chavez, April Quezada, Jaime Mora, Alexis Biasi, Evan Barnett, Jaxson Davis, Crystal Cortex, Samatha Salgado and Asma Nuristani--for their part in the beautiful art work displayed at the designation ceremony.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, we rise to recognize and honor the members of the Winters Middle School Band and Choir for their contribution to the designation ceremony of the Berryessa Snow Mountain Monument by President Barack Obama on July 10, 2015. This outstanding accomplishment was made possible by the tireless work of countless advocates. Their commitment to engaging friends, colleagues, local residents, businesses, stakeholders across the country, and policymakers in a coordinated effort to achieve permanent protection was critical to the establishment of the Monument. Now, the Berryessa Snow Mountain Monument may be counted among the hundreds of pristine parks across the country that represent America's most treasured public resources. The region's unique geological formations will play host for the world's scientists for years to come. Centuries-old archeological sites will draw curious historians and researchers as they piece together the stories of generations past. And avid bikers, hikers, campers, horsemen and women and sportsmen and women will be able to enjoy this landmark that is now forever open and accessible to outdoor enthusiasts from Northern California and beyond. The Berryessa Snow Mountain Monument serves as proof of the value of the Antiquities Act and the power of the Executive to protect these lands in the face of inaction by Congress. After extensive input from interested parties and substantial evidence of this region's value, the Obama Administration honored the support of stakeholders, and the gravity of conservation. The legacy of public lands is one of the most important we can leave for future generations. The Berryessa Snow Mountain Monument is a critical piece of a preservation system that stretches from the Hawaiian Islands to the Maine Coast. We'd like to recognize the students of the Winters Middle School Band and--Jose Montes, Silverio Magallones, David Rivas, Katie Johnson, Melina Mora, Jasmine Moore, Kamila Mora, Melesio Perez, Arthur Cueva, Rylie Schroeder, Easton Rivera, Paige Davis, Karina Echeverria, Joseph Aguiar, Emmett Edman, Braydon Winslow, Erika Contreas, Josef Iten, Victoria Banuelos, Fatima Guzman, Jacqueline Mendoza, Veronica Soria, Jason Lichwa, Alejandra, Junez, Emily Aguiar, Maximiliano Reyes Barajas, Haley Compton, David Morris, Elle Palmer, Garrett Matheson, Kevin Garcia, Christian Sponsler, Alan Chavez, Molly Moore, Donovan Melendez, Lauren Gomez, Katie Medina, Mallory Layne, Ethan Berg, Emily Hoag, Valeria Ceja, Trinity Sponsler, Juan Blanoc, Ulises De La Cruz, Rose Kakutani, Stephanie Angel Lopez, Alex Herrera, Celeste Garcia, Victor Meledez, Lorenzo Arce, Jose Figueroa, Marcos del Toro, Lillian Wirth, Katie Pelletier, Kaylee Smith, Sierra Berry and Haley Archibeque--for their role in the Winters Middle School Band and Choir and their outstanding performance at the designation ceremony.