John Garamendi

Mr. GARAMENDI

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

Mr. GARAMENDI. This amendment would transfer $450 million from the Fossil Fuel Research Account to ARPA-E. The reason for the amendment is that we have to move off the 19th-century fuel, that is, coal and oil, and move to future energy sources, one of which I talked about a few moments ago, that is, the nuclear. The other energy sources are out there. We discussed on this floor here over the last hour the issue of solar. There are fuels, advanced biofuels. There are also wind, solar, wave, geothermal. All of these are being advanced at this time by the ARPA-E program within the Department of Energy. That's where the future is. Now, we can make a choice here about staying with the past and trying to figure out how to create clean coal, which is probably the oxymoron of the century, or we can simply shift our resources to look at other energy sources, and that's what we have to do. The purpose of this amendment is to do that, to shift $450 million into ARPA-E so that we can look for the energy systems of the future, providing the support that they need both in the research and in the early development of those resources. There has been much success in this area. There have been numerous research programs that have been done not only at the Department of Energy facilities, but at universities around this country that have taken advantage of the ARPA-E program. It is modeled after the very successful and very long-lasting Department of Defense ARPA program, and it works. We've actually seen major scientific breakthroughs that have occurred as a result of the funding from the ARPA-E program. Modest as it was, if this amendment were to be adopted, it would be a very big program, one that has the potential of advancing this Nation's future and freeing us--in the case of oil--from the petro dictators of the world and also, in the case of coal, from the extraordinary problems that coal brings to the environment and to communities throughout this Nation. I understand the coal industry and their desire to continue to dig for coal, but we know that at some point we're going to have to move away into the future, and that is what this amendment would attempt to accomplish. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GARAMENDI. This particular section provides $700 million-plus for nuclear power research, various kinds. The chairman spoke to this issue a few moments ago. The purpose of my amendment is to carve out of that $700 million-plus a sum of $20 million to restart America's program on recycling spent nuclear fuel. We currently call this spent nuclear fuel a ``waste'' when, in fact, it still possesses about 97 percent of the energy that was originally in the uranium and then processed once through the light water reactors. The purpose of the amendment is to restart. In the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, America undertook a program to close the nuclear fuel cycle. That was abandoned in 1994 after a successful effort to recycle and to use that energy that is found in the nuclear fuel. Unfortunately, now this spent nuclear fuel, which we call a ``waste product,'' is sitting at every reactor in the United States and mostly around the world, creating a significant hazard. We only need to think about Fukushima's little swimming pool that went dry and of the meltdown that occurred at that point. We need to recycle and completely use, or as much as possible completely use, the energy in these spent nuclear fuel pools. If we do so, we can do it in a way that significantly reduces the hazards and that significantly reduces the longevity of the problem from some 200,000 to some 300 years and create an enormous energy opportunity. This is a beginning. There is a long path ahead of us, and we have to start on this immediately. That is the purpose of this. Unfortunately, it is going to be ruled out of order. However, in the future, as we move forward, I would hope that the committee and this House and the Senate deem fit to put this kind of program back into action. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARAMENDI. I do wish to speak on the point of order.

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

Mr. GARAMENDI. We clearly have to move away from fossil fuels. In order to do so, we need to understand the other opportunities that are available to us. Indeed, solar has been around for a long time. But also in the last decade, 15 years, there have been extraordinary increases in the efficiencies in the solar systems, and they continue to increase. This is not the time for us to back away from the future. It is time for us to move aggressively forward, providing the research, providing the incentives to move to a new source of energy. If you want to continue to pollute the atmosphere, then stay with coal. If you want to continue to be indebted to the petro dictators of the world, then stay with oil. But we need to move away from that. And this money in this particular part of the bill provides us with the opportunity to seize the next generation of power, and that is the sun. Yes, the sun has been around a long time, warming us and providing us with what we need to survive. We need to use it more effectively and efficiently, and that is what this money allows us to do. Removing the $154 million is exactly the wrong thing to do. I oppose the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, Representatives George Miller, Barbara Lee, Pete Stark, Jerry McNerney and I rise today to congratulate Mr. David Williams, Director of Wastewater for the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) on his election as the new President of the National Association of Clean Water Agencies, NACWA. Mr. Williams is an accomplished leader and committed environmental steward. From his military service to this country and throughout his career in clean water, Mr. Williams has exemplified what it means to be a public servant. He is ideally suited for this national leadership position with NACWA and to helping ensure that California's and the Nation's clean water agencies are sustainable, that the environment we live in is consistently improving, and our public health is protected. At EBMUD, Mr. Williams leads one of the nation's most advanced wastewater treatment facilities, providing services to approximately 650,000 people along 88 square miles of the east shore of San Francisco Bay in Alameda and Contra Costa counties. Mr. Williams oversees a staff of roughly 300 professionals and technicians who are responsible for the operation and maintenance of the district's entire wastewater system. Under Mr. Williams' leadership the district has led the industry through his innovative work on several notable programs: utilizing existing wastewater infrastructure to create a national model for recycling and energy creation; working with local dentists, universities and public schools to eliminate sources of mercury in the waterways; developing a partnership with Chevron to build the Richmond Advanced Recycled Expansion (RARE) Water Project; and creating dual plumbing ordinances requiring new development to plan for recycled water use. Since joining others in founding NACWA 41 years ago, EBMUD has benefitted from its active engagement with the organization. A member of NACWA's Board of Directors since 2004, Mr. Williams has previously served as Secretary, Treasurer and Vice President for the organization and has been a member of many NACWA committees and workgroups. He has also been elected to serve on the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Board, a position he currently holds. In addition to his work with NACWA, Mr. Williams has actively participated in local, regional, state and national professional organizations including the California Association of Sanitation Agencies, Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, Bay Area Clean Water Agencies, TriTAC, Aquatic Science Center, the California Water Environment Association San Francisco Bay Section, and the Bay Area Dischargers Association. David Williams has selflessly shared his time, passion, energy and ideas to carry out the objectives of the Clean Water Act and it is my sincere pleasure to ask our colleagues to join us in congratulating him on becoming the new president of the National Association of Clean Water Agencies. Mr. Williams' continued efforts will ensure water quality progress for the San Francisco Bay Area, the State of California, and the Nation.

Mr. GARAMENDI

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

Mr. GARAMENDI. I thank my colleagues for bringing that recitation to an end, but I also urge my colleagues to pay careful attention to what we're trying to accomplish here. I'll try to explain it without reading each and every one of those lines. The Afghan Study Group, Richard Haas and many others who are very familiar with the Afghanistan war and the way in which it is being conducted have suggested that by the end of 2012, America should have no more than 25,000 troops in Afghanistan and then further, wind down the war in 2013 to 10,000 troops focused on terrorists, focused on al Qaeda. As I spoke a few moments ago on this issue, this amendment is to accomplish that goal, to wind down the war in a responsible way over the next 18 months so that at the end of the 18 months--that would be December 31, 2012--that there'd be no more than 25,000 troops in Afghanistan. Now, unfortunately, I can't add the rest of it, but I will at least give the reason for this. And that is to pivot on the success of getting bin Laden. We went to Afghanistan to get al Qaeda. We succeeded. And now we are involved in a civil war, a great civil war, a five-sided civil war, maybe a six- or seven-sided civil war; and we are supporting a government in that war that is at best corrupt and quite possibly even more inept. So what are we doing there besides spending $120 billion a year? Well, we are kind of fighting it out. We're losing a lot of Americans, and even more Afghans are dying. We're not going to be able to solve this with troops on the ground. This war needs to be negotiated. As much effort as we are spending on the troops, we should spend on negotiations. Unfortunately, little or no negotiations are going on that are at least talked about publicly; and I would hope they're going on privately, secretly, but I don't think that to be the case. So we need a negotiated settlement; we need to pivot on the success of bin Laden. We need to focus like a laser on al Qaeda wherever they happen to be in the world. And we know that they are in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, other places in the world--including the United States. So our focus must be on that, not on this civil war. We cannot solve it with our troops in Afghanistan. This amendment would cause us, as Members of Congress, to exert the authority given to us by the Constitution, that is, the power of the purse, and by denying funding for more than 25,000 troops at the end of 2012, we will accomplish the goal of rapidly, appropriately winding down the war. Not my words, but the words of the Afghan Study Group and Richard Haas--people who know these issues. We must do this for our own good, for the good of this Nation. We're sitting here in the midst of a great debate upon a default crisis, a back-and-forth about how do we deal with the deficit. Well, one way we can deal with the deficit is to end this war; $120 billion a year adds up to a third of a trillion dollars in just 3 years. We're not suggesting we can get that. We know we're going to have to maintain some sort of a presence there. But surely we don't need to spend $120 billion in Afghanistan when in our own country we are denying our children an education for lack of money. We are denying our elderly the health care that they need, for example, terminating Medicare for lack of money. We are not feeding our children; ``60 Minutes'' recently did a heart-wrenching story on homeless children living in cars and hotels in America because their parents have lost their jobs. We have an unemployment rate that demands our attention, demands our investment in America, rebuilding America's bridges, roads, rebuilding our manufacturing sector, making it in America once again, rebuilding the real strength of this Nation, its economy, and the middle class so that they can have jobs that will allow them to stay in their homes, provide for their children, live the good American life. We must end this war. We must first wind it down. Were this more than an appropriation bill, I would have gone to step two, which is 10,000 at the end of 2013 with a mission that is the original mission, that is, going after the terrorists, not nation-building. We must, as the President said, rebuild our Nation. And unlike the President, this amendment offers us the opportunity to use our money to rebuild this Nation. By the way, for you deficit hawks, it's all borrowed money. You're borrowing money for Afghanistan, or you're borrowing money to rebuild this Nation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARAMENDI. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. GARAMENDI. I rise in opposition to the underlying bill and will seek an amendment shortly. Memorial Day was a time when four of my colleagues and I traveled throughout Afghanistan. We learned a great deal, and what we did learn we brought home. 1,650 American men and women have died in Afghanistan, and yet the incredible dedication of American soldiers was easy to see. They risk their lives every day. And it is with the utmost respect that we honor them on Memorial Day and beyond. I have great respect for the President and recognize the difficult situation, the decisions that he must make; but, frankly, I think he made the wrong decision. The killing of bin Laden gave us the opportunity to pivot, to go in the direction that we must ultimately go, which is to focus like a laser on al Qaeda, wherever it is in this world, including our own country. We must do that. And yet the decision to maintain in Afghanistan a troop level that really reflects what existed in 2009 is not sustainable. It's costing us a fortune, a fortune that we can ill afford. This entire town is caught up in a debate over the deficit and the pending default crisis, and yet we seem to want to continue to pour money into Afghanistan, into a five-way civil war for which there is no military solution. Negotiations are essential. Yet is this country pushing forward the negotiations? If so, it's in secret, and I certainly hope it is there, because therein lies the solution. I think we don't need 100,000, 50,000, 60,000, troops in Afghanistan. We really only need a handful to focus on al Qaeda, wherever they may be in that region. And so if we were to draw down our troops in the next 18 months to 25,000 in Afghanistan and then 10,000 in 2013, we would begin to get to a level over an appropriate course of time. And it is this House's responsibility to put forth an appropriation bill that provides money for only that, and no more, to limit the funding. It's pretty clear the President has the power to initiate a war. It's equally clear that we have the only power, the only power to fund the war. And if we say no, then this war will cease. If we say only this amount of money for only this purpose, then this war will rapidly diminish. There will be amendments on the floor shortly to achieve that goal. And we ought to proceed in that way. We need to rebuild America. We need to bring the money and the troops home and rebuild this Nation. We can do so when this war is over. Until then, this is a sump in which we are pouring the lives of American men and women and even more Afghan men and women and our treasure to the detriment of this Nation's economic strength. I oppose this war, along with my colleagues, and I would ask this House, Democrat and Republican alike, to use the power of the purse to bring this war to a rapid and appropriate close and fund the negotiations, fund the war on al Qaeda, not the war in Afghanistan.

Mr. GARAMENDI. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. GARAMENDI. I thank the gentlelady from California. Previously, my good friend with whom I've worked for more than 35 years in various levels of government challenged me on the position I take with regard to winding down quickly the war in Afghanistan. His recitation of history, while accurate, is woefully incomplete. Much of what we are now fighting was actually begun by Charlie Wilson, morphed over this period of time perhaps by Pakistan. But we're caught in the middle of a civil war, not just a civil war, but a five- way civil war, one that has gone on for at least the last 35 years. We are, as my friend Mr. McGovern just stated, backing a government that is, on the face of it, corrupt by any standard. So what are we doing here? What is this all about? In fact, we went into Afghanistan to get al Qaeda, and we did. There is only a handful there. There are probably far more al Qaeda sympathizers--and maybe active members--in the United States than in Afghanistan. So why do we have over 100,000 American troops and another 40,000 NATO troops in Afghanistan? I did not suggest that we leave in a vacuum. Instead, I said we leave a small force behind that goes after al Qaeda. Take them out wherever they happen to be. Bring our troops back home. Go back to the original mission in Afghanistan. Go after al Qaeda. You're quite correct, my colleagues. They're in Somalia; they're in Yemen; and they're in other parts of this world. The more troops we have in Iraq and Afghanistan, the more reason we give to those who want to recruit yet more al Qaeda members. This makes no sense going forward. Yes, we will have a continuing obligation, but if you take a look at the strategy that is now in place, one that calls upon America to maintain its troops, then you can count on a larger deficit. That makes no sense to me. Let's bring our troops home rapidly. The amendments that will be on the floor will cause that to happen. We have the power of the purse here. This Nation can no longer sustain $120 billion a year in Afghanistan when our bridges are crumbling, when our children are not educated, when we cannot afford in the budget you're putting forth to feed our children or to care for our elderly. This war must end, and it must end soon. I have great respect for the President, but he has got the wrong strategy. He is continuing on the strategy that by the proof on the ground does not work. Pivot. Go back to what we once said was our goal. Get al Qaeda. Take them out wherever they happen to be. We know we can do it. We have done it. Anybody who wants to play the al Qaeda game on their side, know that this Nation has the capability to take you out. My good friend, Mr. Lewis, the next time you want to recite the history of Afghanistan, recite the full history of Afghanistan, including this Nation's 10-year effort and all of the mistakes that we have made. Let us not compound those mistakes by continuing on the same course for another 3, 4, 5 years and beyond. It's time to end this war. It's time to focus on the true enemy here--al Qaeda.

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

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker and Members, apparently the House has debated for more than almost 40 years ago the War Powers agreement or War Powers law. What we have before us today is a way in which we can effect that law and put it into place, and there is reason for us to support the Hastings amendment or the Hastings resolution, and there are four reasons. First of all, there's a humanitarian issue here, and that's why we went into this in the first place, the United Nations resolution on the obligation to protect, and indeed there was a threat. Secondly, this particular intervention is supported by the United Nations, by NATO, by the Arab League, in a most unusual situation asking for support of the Europeans and the United States in an Arab country. Finally, we must continue our support of the effort, and we must do it in a very limited way. The resolution does that. It provides for a very limited scope and a limited period of time and, therefore, it is in order; and it appropriately puts the Congress, both Houses if this should pass the Senate, in support of the operation, thereby fulfilling the War Powers Act. I ask for an ``aye'' vote on the resolution.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. I thank the gentlelady from New York for yielding. Mr. Speaker, we are later this morning going to be engaged in one of the most important tasks of Congress, and that is what to do about war. Unfortunately, the administration--and I think they would agree to this--didn't adequately engage Congress in the process running up to the beginning of the Libya conflict and didn't sufficiently engage during the course of it. We are now in a position where we will be making some decisions today about how we want this Nation to proceed, whether we want to proceed with a full-on war or with limited or much more limited activity with regard to the support of NATO in the Libya fight. Unfortunately, all of this is now being rushed upon us here on the last day just before the break for the 4th of July. The amount of time to debate this on the floor is far too limited. It would have been our preference on the Democratic side to have had a more full discussion along the lines that the gentlelady from New York discussed in her opening comments--a full-on discussion about how we are to proceed. We are basically going to have two options, both of them with inadequate discussion. I guess we're down to that point now where we have no more alternative but to use the 1 hour, so here we are debating this issue at this moment. For me, there is a very important principle that was enunciated by the United Nations, which is the obligation to defend and protect. That was the basic rationale for this country moving forward with the Libya operation. Yes, the President should have come to us early. He should have come to us at the very beginning and allowed Congress to carry out its constitutional obligations, ``yes'' or ``no.'' But here we are. The obligation or the right or the necessity to defend is very important. That's why we're there. We need to provide the President with the necessary powers to carry out that obligation in a very limited period of time. We'll see that this afternoon or later this morning with the Hastings amendment.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. It appears this morning and today the House of Representatives and Congress will be carrying out its constitutional responsibilities dealing with the war in Libya. Resolutions will be on the floor. Appropriately, we will be voting today on whether we want to end, limit, or extend. For me, I think we have to carry out the U.N. resolution that calls for the right to protect or the obligation and duty to protect. That is why the Libyan situation started. That needs to be completed. I would suggest that the Hastings resolution that gives a year is good in that it provides the necessary restrictions on the White House and on the military in the Libya operation and basically puts the United States in a support position. I would prefer that there be an amendment to that--perhaps it will be in a motion to recommit--that it be limited to 6 months.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, Representatives George Miller, Jerry McNerney and I rise today in honor of Mitch Avalon, who has served the Contra Costa County Public Works Department for the last 32 years. As his colleagues, friends, and family gather together to celebrate the next chapter of his life, we ask all of our colleagues to join us in saluting this outstanding public servant. Mitch Avalon began his journey with the Contra Costa County Public Works Department in 1979 as a civil engineer, where his diligent hard work was recognized and he quickly assumed the title and duties of Deputy Public Works Director, a position which he has held to this day. In addition to his position with the Contra Costa County Public Works Department, Mr. Avalon has also served as the Deputy Chief Engineer for the Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District, further demonstrating his commitment to public service. While working for Contra Costa County, Mr. Avalon contributed to the creation of numerous county public works projects and programs, including the Capital Road Improvement Program, Clean Water Program, and the Contra Costa Watershed Forum. His work was instrumental in creating the annual Contra Costa County Watershed Symposium, which has become an incredible asset to the community. If not for his efforts, many of Contra Costa County's public works projects and programs would not have come to fruition. Mitch Avalon's contributions have not only been an incredible asset to Contra Costa County but to the entire Bay Area. Mr. Avalon sits on the boards of directors for Friends of the San Francisco Estuary, California Central Valley Flood Control Association, and San Francisco Estuary Institute. In addition, he was the founding chair for the Bay Area Flood Protection Agencies Association. In recognition of the integral role he has played in establishing sound public investment throughout the region, Mr. Avalon has been the recipient of many outstanding community awards over the years. In 2005 he was presented with the California State Association of Counties ``Circle of Service Award'' and in 2007 he was honored by the Contra Costa County Watershed Forum with the ``Watershed Champion of the Year Award.'' His legacy will live on through the series of public works projects, programs and associations he helped create and the communities they serve. The long-lasting benefits of Mitch Avalon's career accomplisInnents not only benefit our generation but will improve our communities for generations to come; they stand as a testament to what diligent work and true commitment to community can produce. Mr. Speaker, we are truly honored to pay tribute to our friend and dedicated public servant Mitch Avalon. We ask our colleagues to join with us in thanking Mr. Avalon for his long and dedicated service to the citizens of Contra Costa County and wishing him continued success in all his future endeavors along with a happy retirement.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you very much, Representative Tonko. Our promise to the American seniors and those who want to become seniors is that this tombstone that the Republican Party wants to put out there--that is, the termination of Medicare--will not happen. We will not let this happen. Medicare is part of the American agenda. It is part of what is good about America, and it will not be terminated by anybody. That's our promise. That's where we draw our line in the sand. Thank you very much for this opportunity.

Mr. GARAMENDI. What's that all about?

Mr. GARAMENDI. No more subsidies. Now that I'm on a roll, in that Affordable Care Act, there was additional money for the Internal Revenue Service, the IRS, specifically to go after Medicare fraud. We know it's a problem. In the previous years, the Republican budgets reduced the effort of the Medicare program to go after fraud. So we put money into the Affordable Health Care Act to go after fraud. Guess what happened when the Republicans came to power. They eliminated the money that the IRS needed to add additional agents to go after Medicare fraud.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Representative Tonko, thank you so very much for the opportunity to join you this evening on this critical issue. We often call this the Ryan Roadmap, but it really is the Republican budget proposal. It's not only the chairman of the budget committee that put this out, but every Republican in this House voted for it. So they really have adopted this as their roadmap, as their solution to the problems that face this Nation. You spoke very eloquently about the way in which this proposal would change who pays and how it's going to be paid for. It shifts the burden away from all of us. It shifts the burden onto individual seniors. One of the things that I found very interesting was: How much does it cost an individual senior? Now, recognize that those who are seniors today also suffer. It's not just those who will become seniors but those who are seniors today, and I'll come back to that during this discussion because that's a very, very important part. Our Republican friends have often said this doesn't affect anyone on Medicare. Well, the Medicare portion doesn't, but the Medicaid does because it does cut Medicaid. We'll come back to that. What I want to focus on is the shift of responsibility here and what it's going to cost an individual. If you are not yet 55, then you're going to be in a system that is not Medicare. As you say, it's a voucher program. It's a program in which the government will give you a voucher, a ticket, and say, ``Go buy your insurance.'' What's going to make up the balance? The individual is going to make up the balance, and this little chart lays it out pretty clearly. If you're 55, then you'd better start finding $182,000 right now because, when you become 65 and go on the non-Medicare program, you're going to have to come up with $182,000 in order to be able to buy the insurance that you need. Similarly, if you're 50, you're going to have to have $231,900 in order to be able to purchase the private insurance coverage. It goes on. If you're 40, you'll need $343,800. So you've got to put that money away because, when you become 65 and the Medicare is not there for you, you'll be having to make up the difference. The bottom line on all of this is--I love this one. I think you'll recognize it, Mr. Tonko. We used this some time ago. It's the tombstone. ``Medicare, 1965-2011, Created by LBJ, Destroyed by GOP?'' They are destroying Medicare. Medicare is a program that has been around since 1965. It guarantees that every individual in America who has turned 65 will have this health insurance policy--a policy that guarantees them benefits, doctors' visits, hospital visits, and under the new Affordable Health Care Act, an expansion of services, a whole series of preventative services available without cost to seniors. It actually saves us money. It's very, very interesting that if you spend money up front for prevention, as we do in the Affordable Health Care Act, which, incidentally, every Republican voted against and voted to repeal, that benefit that goes to seniors free saves taxpayers money and keeps seniors healthy.

Mr. GARAMENDI. As we come to the conclusion of this, the Make It In America agenda is a powerful agenda to rebuild the American manufacturing base to put middle class America back to work so that they can have the home that they want, so that they can take care of their children's education, so that they can have, once again, pride in this Nation. We can do it. And these are the policies--a fair trade policy in which we tell China, no, no, no, we're not going to let you cheat on your currency any longer, where the tax policy makes sense. This one. An example. Somewhere in the last 30 years, built into the tax laws was an incentive for American corporations to shift jobs offshore. They take a job; they send it offshore; they got a tax break. I don't know where it came from. I know it was in the Codes. And what we did in the tax bill last December was to eliminate that tax break for American corporations sending jobs offshore. It passed. The President signed it, but our Republican colleagues, to a person, voted against it. They voted to keep that tax break for American corporations to shift jobs offshore. Doesn't make sense to me, but it's gone. And that's the kind of policy we want to put in place, where we take care of Americans who are working in America.