Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the ``Forest Legacy Management Flexibility Act.'' I thank my colleagues, Representatives Jared Huffman (D-CA), Jim Costa (D-CA), Ann M. Kuster (D-NH), and Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR) for cosponsoring my House bill.

As the former Deputy Secretary of the Interior, I know our national conservation goals cannot be achieved through public land ownership alone. The federal and state governments can and must work with private landowners who want to do their part to conserve America's natural landscapes, as my family did for our cattle ranch in 1998. This Act would unlock billions in federal funding to help states conserve working forestlands, create local jobs, and support sustainable forest management practices that reduce wildfire risk.

The ``Forest Legacy Management Flexibility Act'' would allow States to choose to designate accredited, nonprofit land trusts to hold conservation easements purchased with federal funding under the U.S. Forest Service's Forest Legacy Program. Current law requires that only the federal or state governments can hold conservation easements purchased under the Forest Legacy Program.

Allowing States participating in the federal Forest Legacy Program the flexibility to partner with accredited, nonprofit land trusts will help permanently conserve more land by working with private landowners who want to have their land conserved but are wary of selling the federal or state governments an easement on their property. Expanding opportunities to conserve working forestlands will benefit our rural economies and encourage sustainable forest management practices that help prevent wildfires.

This Act maintains the integrity of the Forest Legacy Program by holding all accredited, nonprofit land trusts participating in the Program to the highest possible standards. In addition, it implements safeguards to prevent misuse of the Program and allows the U.S. Forest Service or State to reclaim easements if a land trust falls into noncompliance with the Program.

We will need every tool in the toolbox to advance the Biden-Harris Administration's ``America the Beautiful'' National Conservation Goal to conserve at least 30 percent of the lands and waters in the United States by 2030 and Governor Newsom's similar conservation goal for the State of California. This Act takes a critical step towards meeting these goals and protecting our country's natural resources and forests for future generations.

The ``Forest Legacy Management Flexibility Act'' would unlock new opportunities and funding for permanent land conservation. My colleagues and I are honored to introduce this legislation to preserve America's working forests and bolster our rural economies. Mr. Speaker, I encourage all members to join us in cosponsoring this bill.

Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to address the future of our nuclear posture.

In 1985, Ronald Reagan and Gorbachev, two cold warriors at the head of the world's largest nuclear arsenals, declared that nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. That declaration was regularly repeated and reaffirmed by the leaders of all five Nuclear Weapon States in 2022. This recognition should be the start and end of every conversation on nuclear weapons.

Nevertheless, nuclear powers, since the advent of the Cold War, instead seem to have concluded that deterrence requires more nuclear weapons of every kind than the adversary. Today, because of this logic, we find ourselves engaged in a three-way nuclear arms race with Russia, China, and the U.S., each blaming the other for starting it and continuing it. Each nation, fearing an adversary may outflank them, continues to build nuclear infrastructure: nuclear silos in China's western deserts, nuclear weapons on satellites, and replacement ICBMs. As each nation seeks to strengthen its own hand, on and on it goes . . . a constant buildup where a country asks, ``How can we build faster?'' or ``What can we target'' but ignores the most important question: Why?

Leadership requires the rigorous use of that three-letter word, ``Why.'' We must avoid blind adherence to yesterday's decisions. In today's discussion, that means asking what is sufficient for nuclear deterrence. Looking at past strategies and relying on past assumptions isn't enough. Old cold-war mentalities will create unacceptable costs, rob us of alternatives, and place us in even greater danger. Instead, we must think boldly and not repeat the problems of our history.

With this in mind, I bring this question of ``why'' to us all.

I know full well that we face a hostile world with numerous aggressive adversaries. We also know that we are now engaged in a nuclear arms race with China and Russia. Other nations are also known to have nuclear weapons, and others seek them. In this dangerous environment, deterrence must consider far more than just a great-power nuclear exchange.

We have also seen the threat to use nuclear weapons to deter non- nuclear aggression. Putin has used irresponsible nuclear threats to try and prevent our support for the Ukrainian people in the defense of their country.

Of course, no one has yet used these weapons, a fact that I know we are all grateful for, but with every threat comes the risk of use. No matter who has them, the prevalence of nuclear weapons places the world at risk. Today, we must think not just in terms of the threat but also in terms of the future.

So, let us ask a foundational question: Why does America need nuclear weapons? If it does, how many and what kind? Proponents often justify nuclear weapons for two reasons: (1) to deter and fight a strategic nuclear exchange between major powers, and (2) to deter non-nuclear aggression.

Focusing on the first category, deterring an opponent from using strategic and tactical nuclear weapons, history would indicate that the strategy has worked for more than 70 years . . . but that record understates how close we came to causing our own destruction. Several near-disastrous incidents motivated leaders to back away and undertake several treaties to reduce weapons and risks. Leaders like Reagan, JFK, Eisenhower, Carter, and Obama knew that nuclear weapons could end civilization and, with those heavy moral and ethical considerations in mind, negotiated significant safety measures and a serious reduction in nuclear weapons.

These leaders demonstrated vision and commitment. They knew that war was not an option, so they had to create a vision for a safer future. Unfortunately, too many today shrug their shoulders and say the time for negations is not now. Which brings us to yet another question: Why not try? Over the next 30 years, we will spend almost 2 trillion dollars on our nuclear weapons. What if we spent just 1% on diplomatic and risk reduction efforts?

The second category of limiting non-nuclear aggression carries its own risks. Proponents of using nuclear weapons suggest that we could use ``tactical weapons'' in some limited way. However, once a nuclear option starts, when and how does a tactical exchange proceed? In the chaos and fog of war, would this tactical nuclear option just open the way to full-scale devastation? Many ``think tanks'' have studied this, and to this day, the result is ``do not open Pandora's Box.''

Despite their limitations, both categories are also how we continue to justify our spending on our massive nuclear arsenal. Some even use them to justify larger and larger expenses. But this brings us to another why question: Why have we chosen to spend our defense dollars on modernizing every element in the current nuclear systems?

This question will become increasingly important as timelines slip and costs grow in our nuclear modernization programs. For example, fresh off its first Nunn-McCurdy review, the Sentinel Program will now cost at least $140 billion, not including a new bomb for another $30 billion or the unknown costs of plutonium pit production.

We have an obligation to ask why. Not only `why the extraordinary cost increases', but far more importantly, why are we doing the Sentinel program at all? Is there no alternative that would deter adversaries more effectively?

History is an important guide in this matter. In the 1950s and 1960s, our nuclear enterprise developed ground-based ICBMs, and we have continued them through the years. Today, members of Congress, without scrutiny, repeat a mantra that 400 ground-based ICBMs are necessary. But 40 years after the advent of the SSBNs and 20 years after stealth bombers, why are these ground-based ICBMs necessary? These missiles sit in their silos, not too far from you, in the heart of America, whose locations are known to cow hands, sheepherders, and targeting personnel in the bunkers of our adversaries.

If, in a nuclear crisis, adversaries chose to target out missile fields, they will launch early

to destroy those missiles whose locations are known. Thus, the MMIII and the Sentinel create an extraordinarily dangerous situation. In the event of a perceived attack, there would be immense pressure on the President to make the decision to launch within minutes or risk losing the missiles.

With all this in mind, why spend such a massive amount of money on a system that is so vulnerable and so extraordinarily dangerous? In defense policy, nothing should be sacred or untouchable, and everything should require frequent re-evaluation. So, let us not be afraid to ask yet another question: why a triad? Strategy cannot afford to be stagnant. It cannot afford to complacently accept the assumptions of the past.

We must ask why we need the ground leg of the Triad. If the nuclear program is for deterrence, is the firepower of the submarines, airplanes, and their missiles sufficient to dissuade an adversary? These systems have the benefit of stealth, and the President has the time to gather all information and then decide whether to use the nuclear response. If that were not enough, we also have conventional weapons that can deter adversaries.

But even if we do retain each leg, we must reevaluate what's truly necessary within each. We do not have infinite resources and must make difficult choices about where we allocate our national resources. As we rethink whether we can achieve deterrence with different mixes, let's prioritize safety and effectiveness over fulfilling antiquated assumptions or requirements. Remember, this is not just a matter of matching our capability to their capability. This is about what will ensure our future survival.

Too often, debates on deterrence do not consider the rapidly changing security environment; cyber warfare, uncertainty, confusion, and misunderstanding could be greater risks than aggression. We are heavily dependent on our space observation and communication systems, and now we know that space war is real and routinely discussed. How do we weigh those risks when we decide to continue to keep 400 Sentinel or MMIII missiles, each prepared to kill millions, on constant alert, ready for immediate launch in just a few moments when there will certainly be chaos and uncertainty?

Surely, more destructive capability is not always better. So why do we need so many? Considering how many weapons will deter conflict is not just a military problem of tit-for-tat calculations. What national victory could we, or just as important our adversaries, ever hope to achieve at the end of a nuclear war that inevitably kills hundreds of millions of people, including tens of millions of Americans, destroys entire cities, and endangers the environment of the planet?

As we think about deterrence in the modern era, it is clear from rising costs and the existential dangers that we cannot afford a new arms race. Of course, we must grapple with hard questions about how to deter dangerous adversaries. Still, we must answer an even harder question: how do we deter in a way that ensures there is a tomorrow worth protecting? Must we continue a 50-year-old triad strategy without considering the alternatives? Why, why are we stuck in a logic silo with the blast door closed?

I want to end this with a discussion I had with the captain of a United Kingdom nuclear-armed submarine. After touring his ship, I stopped at the foot of the ladder to thank him for the discussion. I said ``I appreciate the enormous responsibility and difficult task that you have. If you receive a message to launch your missiles, and you do, what do you do next? Go home?'' I'll never forget the look on his face. I don't know if he had ever contemplated that question, but that's a question that we must all ask today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Marine Exchange of the San Francisco Bay Region, upon celebrating its 175th anniversary. Since its inception, the Marine Exchange has been at the forefront of technological advancement in its industry, implementing groundbreaking improvements to make the maritime industry safer for all.

Originally founded in 1849, the Marine Exchange facilitated safe and efficient maritime trade during the California Gold Rush. Over the decades, the Marine Exchange evolved into a critical driver of innovation in the Bay Area, helping expand and develop the Bay Area's maritime industry. From installing the first electric telegraph on the West Coast to serving as the research and development site for the first vessel traffic service in the country, the Marine Exchange has played an essential role in supporting the America's maritime infrastructure and promoting navigational and environmental safety.

The Marine Exchange's remarkable milestone of 175 years of service demonstrates the organization's sincere commitment to supporting our country's maritime industry and the countless Americans whose livelihoods depend on it. This commitment has led to tremendous economic impact in the Bay Area and beyond, strengthened environmental protections, and improved organization and communication throughout the region.

On behalf of the constituents of California's Eighth Congressional District, I would like to honor the Marine Exchange of the San Francisco Bay Region upon its 175th anniversary and extend my sincere gratitude for its generations of service to the United States maritime industry.

Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the ``Justice for Victims of Foreign Vessel Accidents Act,'' with Congressman Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson (D-GA) as the original cosponsor.

For years, I have been working to recapitalize the U.S.-flag international fleet of oceangoing, commercial vessels needed to support our military. I was honored to serve as the top Democrat on the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure's Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation from 2013 to 2018.

Less than a week after the foreign-flagged Dalia collided with the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore Harbor, the vessel's Singapore- based corporate owner filed in the U.S. District Court for Maryland to limit its total liability for the bridge collapse and recovery effort to just $43.7 million, valuing the vessel at $90 million. In doing so, the Dalia's owner invoked a federal law enacted in 1851, limiting their legal liability for damages to the dollar value of the vessel and its cargo, minus salvage costs. This tragic accident, which killed six and injured two workers on the Francis Scott Key Bridge, calls into serious question why U.S. law affords the owners of vessels flying foreign ``flags of convenience'' any liability shield.

Foreign-flagged commercial vessels like the Dalia are typically registered under the laws of unscrupulous jurisdictions that lack any Navy, Coast Guard, or ability to inspect commercial vessels to ensure safety, prevent environmental degradation, or stop maritime labor abuses. Furthermore, foreign ocean carriers or other vessel owners flying flags of convenience are often domiciled in offshore tax havens. For these reasons and more, U.S.-flag commercial vessels are already at a competitive disadvantage globally. The U.S. judicial system should not protect foreign competitors to the detriment of victims and their families.

That is why our ``Justice for Victims of Foreign Vessel Accidents Act'' would increase the liability for foreign-flagged vessels to up to 10 times the dollar value of the vessel and its cargo, minus expenses. This would ensure that victims and their families can hold foreign vessel owners accountable in federal court for wrongful death or personal injury claims. Current law only allows compensation for lost wages. Importantly, our bill would maintain the current liability threshold for U.S.-flagged vessels including those compliant with the Jones Act, which unlike foreign-flagged vessels are subject to U.S. law and inspected regularly by the Coast Guard and state regulators. Lastly, our bill would apply the higher liability level for damages by foreign-flagged vessels to March 25, 2024, the night before the Francis Scott Key Bridge's collapse.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the Maryland Delegation and the Biden-Harris Administration's ongoing work to rebuild the Francis Scott Key Bridge with federal funding as quickly as possible. I hope that the House will act swiftly on Congressman Kweisi Mfume's (D-MD) ``Baltimore Bridge Response Invests and Delivers Global Economic (BRIDGE) Relief Act'' (H.R. 7961). In the meantime, I encourage all Members of the House will join us in cosponsoring this commonsense reform.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the dedication ceremony for the Lieutenant Colonel James C. Warren Memorial Interchange. In 2015, the Interstate-80/505 Interchange was officially named the Lieutenant Colonel James C. Warren Memorial Interchange, yet a physical sign designating the recognition and new name of the interchange was never established.

Lt. Col. Warren began his 35 years of service in the U.S. Air Force during World War II as an original member of the 477th Bombardment, comprised of African American military pilots known as the ``Tuskegee Airmen.'' He flew over 12,000 hours and 173 combat missions, never failing to answer the call to serve our country.

As a result of his bravery and aptitude, Lt. Col. Warren was selected as the navigator of ``Homecoming One,'' bringing home the first group of American POW's from North Vietnam. In 1971, when Apollo 14 landed on Earth, he was a member of the team that safely recovered the space crew. Lt. Col. Warren participated in countless crucial moments in our history and his selfless service undeniably solidified him as an American hero.

Lt. Col. Warren's service alongside his fellow Tuskegee Airman was critical to the Civil Rights Movement and breaking down the barriers of segregation in the U.S. military. In 1945, Lt. Col. Warren and the Tuskegee Airman attempted to integrate an all-white Officers' Club at Freeman Army Airfield. The incident led to the arrest of 102 officers, including Lt. Col. Warren. This event is widely regarded as a seminal moment in the push toward full integration of the U.S. military and as a model for civil disobedience during the Civil Rights Movement.

For his critical contributions to our country, Lt. Col. Warren was awarded numerous medals, including the Distinguished Flying Cross with two Oak Leaf Clusters, the Air Medal with eleven Oak Leaf Clusters, and the Congressional Gold Medal. Lt. Col. Warren dedicated his life to serving our country, and his bravery and tenacity helped create a better, more equitable society for future generations of Americans.

I am thrilled that the dedication for the Lieutenant Colonel James C. Warren Memorial Interchange will finally be completed. On behalf of California's Eighth Congressional District, I extend my sincere gratitude to Lt. Col. James C. Warren for his selfless service, advocacy, and tremendous impact on our country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and lasting contributions of Mrs. Jane Bartke. Mrs. Bartke, who passed away at the age of 86, leaves behind an indelible legacy of service to our country and Contra Costa County.

A longtime resident of El Cerrito, California, Mrs. Bartke's commitment to her community inspired her to serve in the California Public School System for over thirty years. Throughout her career in education, Mrs. Bartke served as a teacher, counselor, and Department Chair for West Contra Costa Unified School District. She consistently demonstrated a steadfast dedication to her students, and her wisdom and compassion undeniably changed the California education system for the better.

Mrs. Bartke's commitment to her community extended beyond her critical efforts as an educator. She also served on the El Cerrito City Council, as Mayor of El Cerrito, and as President of the Trust for the Rosie the Riveter/World War II Home Front National Historical Park. Mrs Bartke's public service was characterized by her selflessness, advocacy for the people of El Cerrito, and commitment to the empowerment of women.

Mrs. Bartke exemplified the spirit of altruism in all areas of her life. She will be remembered not only for her decades of service to California students and teachers, but also for her genuine spirit of kindness and compassion. She leaves behind an everlasting mark on countless students, fellow teachers, and the El Cerrito community.

Mrs. Bartke's enduring spirit will live on in her husband, two daughters, four grandchildren, and four great-grandchildren. I would like to extend my deepest sympathies to Mrs. Bartke's loved ones I know that they, along with the people of Contra Costa County, join me in celebrating her life and legacy.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to thank Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro for exonerating the Port Chicago 50 after a second review of their case since 1994, correcting 80 years of injustice. As the Congressman for Port Chicago, California, I am pleased that justice delayed is no longer justice denied for these American veterans of World War II and their families.

On July 17, 1944, a tragic munitions explosion at the Port Chicago Naval Magazine killed 320 sailors and civilian workers, the majority of whom were African American. While white officers were given time off following the accident, white Navy officers ordered African American sailors to return to work in the same unsafe conditions that killed their fellow servicemembers. When 50 of these men refused, they were wrongfully charged with mutiny and convicted in a hastily conducted trial overshadowed by the scourge of racism.

The convictions of the Port Chicago 50 were not just a miscarriage of justice; they were emblematic of the broader racial prejudice that African Americans faced within the military and society at large, even while serving in their country's uniform or contributing to the war effort on the Homefront as civilian workers. These men stood against dangerous conditions and racial discrimination, maintaining their innocence up until their deaths decades later.

Public outrage over their Navy trail and conviction lead to the U.S. Navy becoming the first military service branch to officially desegregate in 1946, helping to civil rights for all Americans. President Truman ordered the desegregation of all U.S. military service branches in 1948. In 1999, President Clinton pardoned Freddie Meeks, one of the three surviving sailors of the Port Chicago 50 and the only to request one. The two other surviving sailors declined a presidential pardon, refusing to ask for clemency for a crime for which they were wrongfully convicted. All three men have since passed away.

Exoneration of the Port Chicago 50 is a long overdue step in addressing historical injustices and affirming our national commitment to equality for all service members and all Americans regardless of race or creed. Now, 80 years later, the families of the Port Chicago 50 finally have closure and justice. I am proud to stand with the families of these World War II veterans and my colleagues, Representatives Mark DeSaulnier and Barbara Lee, in celebrating this historic moment. By exonerating them, we honor their memory and rightful place in American history, ensuring their legacy is remembered with dignity and as early leaders who helped to inspire what later became the American civil rights movement.

Mr Speaker, yesterday I entered my vote incorrectly for Roll Call No. 325 on H.R. 8774. I mistakenly voted NAY when I intended to vote YEA.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize United States Air Force Brigadier General Derek M. Salmi for his critical service and outstanding leadership as Commander of the 60th Air Mobility Wing, Travis Air Force Base.

Brigadier General Salmi commissioned from the Air Force Academy in 1998 after earning his Bachelor of Science in political science. Throughout his 25-year-long career, he has

commanded at the squadron, group, and wing levels and served as a command pilot with more than 3,000 hours in mobility and trainer aircraft. In addition, he has deployed in support of Operations Enduring Freedom, Iraqi Freedom, and New Dawn.

As the Travis Air Force Base 60th Air Mobility Wing Commander, Brigadier General Salmi led the Air Force's largest air mobility organization in terms of personnel and was responsible for the well- being and readiness of more than 26,100 active-duty, reserve and civilian personnel, and their families. In addition, he managed $13 billion in capital assets, executed a $650 million budget, and oversaw the Air Force's largest medical center in the continental United States. Brigadier General Salmi's critical leadership and expertise not only made our country safer, but also helped improve the lives of the thousands of military and civilian personnel who work at Travis Air Force Base.

Brigadier General Salmi's commitment to preparing the units at Travis Air Force Base to respond to any potential threat characterized his tenure as Commander of the 60th Air Mobility Wing. He led the 60th Air Mobility Wing in executing two intensive joint Agile Combat Employment exercises in the United States Indo-Pacific Command theater of operations while simultaneously providing 35 percent of all Department of Defense logistics support to Ukraine.

Under Brigadier General Salmi's leadership, the 60th Air Mobility won 117 United States Air Force and Air Mobility Command awards. In addition, he directed multiple key military construction projects that will make Travis Air Force Base more resilient and our country more secure.

Brigadier General Salmi's selfless commitment to the military personnel and families stationed at Travis Air Force Base has undeniably improved the base for future generations of servicemembers. On behalf of California's Eighth Congressional District, I would like to extend my sincere gratitude for Brigadier General Salmi's dedication and service to our country and community. I know Travis Air Force Base and the Solano County community join me in extending our best wishes as Brigadier General Salmi embarks on his future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Ms. Mary Highfill, a ``Rosie'' whose critical contributions to the World War II Home Front helped empower American women and advance gender equity in the workforce. Ms. Highfill, who passed away at the age of 100, leaves behind an indelible legacy of service to our country and Contra Costa County.

Born in San Francisco and raised in Point Richmond, California, Ms. Highfill's commitment to her community inspired her to enter the workforce at a young age. During World War II, she joined her fellow Rosies in answering the call to serve and help meet the unprecedented demand for war materials and support services. During the war, she worked at Standard Oil Company as a stillman, where she helped prepare crude oil to be shipped for use at home and abroad. When our country needed courageous women to fill the roles historically held by men, Ms. Highfill's selflessness and bravery led her to step up and sacrifice her personal comfort for the sake of our country.

Ms. Highfill's passion for service expanded beyond her essential contributions to the World War II Home Front. She also served as President of the Washington School Parent Teacher Association and as a member of the Richmond Galileo Club Women's Auxiliary. In addition, Ms. Highfill served as Secretary of the Historical Association and participated in countless Rosie the Riveter events to honor and celebrate the legacy of the millions of women who selflessly supported the wartime effort during World War II.

Rosies like Ms. Highfill are a testament to women's empowerment and an inspiration to future generations of women and girls. Ms. Highfill will be remembered not only for her service to our country in its time of need, but also for her vital part in building a stronger, more equitable America. I would like to extend my deepest sympathies to Ms. Highfill's loved ones. I know they and the people of Contra Costa County join me in celebrating her life and legacy.

Mr. Speaker, I had to return to California unexpectedly this week for a family emergency and missed votes. Had I been present, I would have voted NO on Roll Call No. 279 on final passage of H.R. 8070, and NO on Roll Call No. 260 on agreeing to H. Res. 1292.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Colonel Carlos `Slinger' Berdecia of the United States Air Force upon his retirement from the U.S. Military after more than 23 years of service.

Colonel Berdecia was born and raised in Bayamon, Puerto Rico, and graduated from the University of North Carolina with a Bachelor of Science in marketing. He also holds a Master of Business Administration from the City University of Seattle. Colonel Berdecia began his flying career in 2003 at Joint Base Lewis McChord in Washington State, flying the C-17A Globemaster III with the 8th and 10th Airlift Squadrons. He quickly upgraded in the `Mighty Moose' from Co-Pilot to Instructor Pilot in just four years, flying combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. After his assignment at McChord, Colonel Berdecia taught the newest C-17A pilots in the 58th Airlift Squadron at Altus Air Force Base, Oklahoma. There, he was accepted to the United States Air Force Weapons School, where he graduated in 2009 and earned the callsign `Slinger.'

After his time at Altus, Colonel Berdecia moved to Charleston, South Carolina, and became a member of the Special Operations Low Level community in the 16th Airlift Squadron, where he executed missions in support of the Combined Joint Chiefs of Staff. In 2014, he was selected to work as the AFRICOM J3's Executive Officer in Stuttgart, Germany, and in 2017, was chosen to return to Altus and Command his previous Squadron, the 58th Airlift Squadron `Rat Pack.' Due the trust and confidence his leadership had in his ability to lead, Colonel Berdecia was selected as a Secretary of Defense Executive Fellow with Team Rubicon in Los Angeles, California. After his time in Los Angeles, Slinger was assigned to the Pentagon, and after a tour on staff with the Joint Staff, he was brought back to the C-17A. His final assignment in the Air Force was that of the 437th Operations Group Commander at Joint Base Charleston, South Carolina, leading the men and women of Air Mobility Command's Premier Operations Group.

Colonel Berdecia's exemplary service to the United States Air Force spans more than 23 years and 5,000 hours in airlift aircraft. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my Congressional colleagues and a grateful country, I extend our deepest appreciation to Colonel Carlos `Slinger' Berdecia and his wife Eva for their dedicated service to the United States Air Force and our country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call on this body to fulfill its responsibility in addressing an existential challenge facing our nation. For decades, nuclear weapons have threatened the safety of our country and our planet. Today, as nations re-arm and competition re-emerges, we run the risk of repeating our past mistakes and entering a new cold war. A nuclear arms race is well underway, and it poses an existential threat to all. This Congress must stand up and stop the escalatory spiral before it's too late.

It's well past time for our voices, the voices of restraint and risk reduction, to be heard in the nuclear arms debate. The United States, the Russian Federation, and the People's Republic of China are locked into an extraordinarily dangerous nuclear arms race. All three countries are rapidly increasing their nuclear firepower with new and more capable bombs, more long-range missiles, new stealth delivery systems, bombers, and submarines. And as tensions heighten, all of this is dependent on the newest field of warfare: space. All three countries depend upon their space assets to observe, detect threats, and communicate the commands to act.

We must cut through the rhetoric of fear and doomsaying that dominates our nuclear policy debates. We can no longer allow the thoughtful, calm voices to be drowned out by fearmongering cries. We must rise above the noise. Instead of developing cost-effective military systems that provide security while defusing tensions, we have fallen into the fallacy that more missiles make us more secure. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Today, we must call out the failures of our current approach to nuclear modernization and demand that we treat arms control and de- escalation with the same dedication and focus we give to our nuclear weapons development. It is long past time to develop a strategy that sets priorities, recognizes limitations, and strives for a safer future.

It is important to step back and consider the history and broader context of nuclear weapons and Congressional involvement. Since their development almost 80 years ago, the destructive capability of nuclear weapons has terrified and shocked, but also led governments to pursue their own arsenals and develop the capacity to destroy our civilization multiple times over. Governments have justified expanding stockpiles with convoluted theories of nuclear deterrence that often defy common sense.

It wasn't until arms control programs and treaties were established that Russia and the United States de-escalated this spiral of stockpiling bombs. Through four decades, progress was made, the number of deployed and existing nuclear bombs was reduced, and even the most adversarial countries agreed that ``a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.'' Yet, despite this understanding, we continue to maintain and modernize our arsenals with a belief that these weapons dissuade others from employing theirs. The threat of nuclear conflict remains, and with it, life on our planet ending or becoming dramatically changed.

It would be useful to remind people of the arms control agreements and the leaders that negotiated them. I'm sure that some of my congressional nuclear warriors would be surprised to see that their most ardent national security heroes negotiated the reductions and controls.

I recognize the nuclear threats posed by countries like North Korea, Russia, and China. I do not deny the challenging security environment we face. I am fully aware of the Taiwan/China threat, as well as China's military buildup and South China Sea expansion. The North Korean regime is dangerous and could precipitate a conflict at any moment. I condemn Russia's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, irresponsible nuclear saber-rattling, and dangerous nuclear exercises.

Despite these serious threats, we must be wise in preparing our defense and response. Aggression should not be our first thought when faced with threats, uncertainty, and misunderstandings. Therefore, I strongly support efforts by the U.S. and Chinese governments to engage in meaningful dialogue that results in specific, concrete actions to reduce the risk of miscommunication or escalation.

As we navigate these complex geopolitical landscapes, it is imperative that we pause and reflect on the strategies guiding our nuclear policy. Strategy must be more than a word thrown on top of grandiose statements. True strategy is making the hard choices to align our country's limited resources with our unlimited aspirations.

The greatest problem facing our nuclear strategy today is that we fail to realistically consider that balance, revisit our assumptions, adjust course when programs fail, and figure out new paths forward. Once approved, weapons programs persist, even when they nearly double and triple their budget. No one stops and says, ``Enough.''

Too often, we allow these debates to be driven by military calculations and how ``experts'' would fight a nuclear war. But we must not forget that in a democratic society, the military is the extension of the political and not the other way around. When it comes to programs and strategies that threaten our very existence, we, as a whole society, must decide what costs we should bear and what risks we must take. Our nuclear strategy must be balanced and rational, allowing for deterrence and defensive actions while encouraging collaboration for a more peaceful future.

We in Congress are part of the problem. We have bought into the assumption that more nuclear weapons will make us safer. Ever-growing costs reflect the irrationality that has plagued our nuclear policy. In the name of ``modernization,'' we've taken on hundreds of billions of dollars of additional spending, and the nuclear accounts grow without question or scrutiny.

An example is the nuclear modernization efforts. The political price tag for New START was the modernization of all three legs of America's nuclear triad. Proponents told us the multi-billion-dollar cost was necessary to ensure that we continue to have a viable deterrent. Today, we can and should debate whether every part of modernization is cost- effective and necessary for deterrence. We must also fully understand the reasons for the massive growth in the cost of all these programs.

Let's turn to the new Sentinel ICBM, which is destined to replace the Minuteman III. It has incurred an egregious 37 percent cost overrun, making the program's cost almost 211 percent higher than the Air Force's initial 2015 estimate. This has triggered a critical Nunn- McCurdy cost overrun, forcing a stop and a full statutory review. Despite the new estimated cost of $130 billion, there are loud and clear reflexive signals that the Pentagon and Congress intend to plow ahead no matter the cost or the necessity. ``We'll do whatever is necessary.''

While this may be convenient, the law requires a complete and full review that addresses five critical steps. (1) The program is essential to national security; (2) there are no alternatives to the program that will provide acceptable capability; (3) the new cost estimates have been determined to be reasonable; (4) the program is a higher priority than programs whose funding will be reduced to cover the increased cost of this program; and (5) the management structure is sufficient to control additional cost growth. It is imperative that the Pentagon conduct a thorough examination to assess the necessity and feasibility of continuing the program in its current state. Equally necessary is that Congress engage in a full debate to assess the Pentagon's rationale. Without public pressure, it is doubtful that any hearings will occur, and that's why our Congressional Nuclear Weapons and Arms Control Working Group will hold its own hearing on July 24th.

For years, Congress has dictated in the annual NDAA that the U.S. maintain a minimum of 400 ICBMs. A number founded not on logic but because ``that's what we have always had.'' The number of ground-based ICBMs should not be set by the number of existing concrete silos but in the honest analysis of nuclear strategy. Such a review must consider the risk of a catastrophic mistake inherent in the Sentinel program. In the event of an attack, it is assumed that the first target is the well-known locations of the ICBMs. It's a use-it or lose-it situation. Therefore, a ``Launch on Warning'' is the operational imperative. The President has only minutes to decide if the attack is real.

If the nuclear program is for deterrence, then the submarines, airplanes, and their missiles offer sufficient firepower to dissuade an adversary. These systems have the benefit of stealth, and the President has the time to gather all information and then decide to use the nuclear response. If that weren't enough, we also have ample conventional weapons capability to deter potential adversaries.

However, the Sentinel program is not the only problem. The hidden costs of ground-

based ICBM modernization are found in unexpected and little-noticed places like the ``Energy and Water'' appropriations bill, which would spend $19.8 billion for ``Weapons Activities,'' a $2.7 billion increase from the previous year. So, what is the $19.8 billion for? This year, the Department of Energy/NNSA requested a $3 billion down payment for the production of ``plutonium pits,'' which are the hollow plutonium shells used to trigger the nuclear reaction. On its own, this number is astonishingly high, but it doesn't include the anticipated $8 billion to build the production facility in Los Alamos and the second facility at Savannah River, which alone has a projected total project cost of $18-25 billion, nearly six times the initial estimated cost for construction. It will be the most expensive building in America. And there is the $1.4 billion requested for stockpile sustainment, the $1.1 billion dollars for the Sentinel warhead development at Lawrence Lab, which has grown by 63 percent, and the untold cost of the six other warheads and bombs that support the other nuclear modernization programs.

Even proponents of modernizing nuclear programs should be concerned about the high costs. The January 2023 GAO report found that the NNSA has not developed a comprehensive schedule or cost estimate and has not identified all necessary activities or milestones to achieve the required 80-pit-per-year production capacity. And why do we need to produce 80 pits per year when America already has over 4,000 plutonium pits in storage? Has anyone studied the potential of repurposing these pits for the new bombs? The bottom line is this: Senior officials at the NNSA admit they won't meet deadlines and have no idea what the ultimate cost will be.

I have tried to force common-sense reforms to better estimate cost. For example, I offered a straightforward amendment that would change the current law requiring 80 pits per year to a lower number that represents the realistic number of plutonium pits our country needs and can feasibly produce. To some, this is seen as an ``extreme radical position,'' and my proposal was voted down. Time and time again, I have been denied the opportunity to bring important nuclear matters to the floor for debate.

Across the nuclear enterprise, costs are soaring, fears are growing, and it remains unclear what goals we are achieving. Yet, amidst soaring costs and escalating risks, it's imperative to reassess our nuclear priorities. Investing more of the modernization budget into diplomacy, arms control, and education could yield far-reaching benefits, fostering a stronger and more secure nation. Congress must fulfill its duty to allocate taxpayer funds responsibly, avoiding excessive expenses on wasteful nuclear programs that do little to enhance genuine security. Maintaining a ``safe, secure, and effective deterrent'' does not necessitate these costly modernization plans, especially given the pressing needs in other areas critical to national strength and stability.

The significance of arms control cannot be overstated. Prioritizing de-escalation isn't just an idealistic notion; it's a necessity. Arms races cannot be won. When we attempt to outpace our adversaries in weapon development, they inevitably respond in kind, draining our limited resources and fostering international instability as fear predominates and the world's most devastating weapons become a more likely option.

The critical role of arms control in preserving global stability and security is evident from history's many close calls. We can't afford to wait for another Cuban missile crisis to recognize the dangers of miscommunication and the failure to engage in dialogue.

Only a few lonely congressional voices have joined the clarion call put forth by the Arms Control Association, Ploughshares, Council for a Livable World, Union of Concerned Scientists, Friends Committee on National Legislation, Nuclear Threat Initiative, and other well-known arms control organizations. Year after year, funding proposals and resolutions to support non-proliferation, nuclear fissile material control and verification, and weapons negotiations have been made to draw attention to the importance of arms control. Like Sisyphus pushing the boulder up the hill, it is often thankless work, fighting and clawing for progress only to see it roll back down again, as had happened in the Intermediate Range Nuclear Missile Treaty, New START, and the Iran nuclear agreement. But the work could not be more important. Unlike that Greek myth, I do believe that we can get the boulder to the top of the hill and develop robust arms control regimes that will help us all to avoid an existential threat.

There are three key pillars in this endeavor. First, knowledge of the destructive power of nuclear weapons and an understanding of their role in modern warfare. The library is full of studies on nuclear war, deterrence, the risks of misunderstanding, compelling arguments for risk reduction, and the value of arms control. We cannot forget the horrors that nuclear weapons would inflict if they were ever used again. This work cannot be understated. It's been 79 years since Hiroshima and Nagasaki and 40 years since the movie ``The Day After'' aired, showing Americans and their leadership just how terrible such an event would be. It is a hard truth, but one we must face. We can't allow nuclear weapons rhetoric to be divorced from the very real consequences of their use.

Secondly, encouraging dialogue and fostering open communication channels are essential. While it may appear impossible to have any arms control negotiations with Russia as it conducts its war of aggression in Ukraine, it is important to remember that many of the previous arms treaties with Russia began at the moment of maximum international tension. The recent dialogues with China's political and military leaders are encouraging. We should accept China's offer to discuss ``No first use'' policy. We don't know where the discussion may lead, but it's an opening.

Lastly, garnering political support is crucial. Non-profits and advocacy groups have laid the groundwork; now, we must amplify their efforts and call on Congress to act. For too long, our focus on arms control has waned, and members of Congress have paid too little focus.

This is the moment to redouble our efforts. In a world marked by uncertainty and growing competition, building bridges and fostering understanding is more critical than ever. However, this effort must start at home. Inevitably, Congress must reconcile our infinite desires with our limited means. That means making hard decisions about how and where to spend taxpayer dollars to achieve real security. Hundreds of billions of dollars and 14 years have been spent in the modernization of America's nuclear weapons programs, and it has yielded a three- nation nuclear arms and space race. Are we more secure?

The Sentinel ICBM program, now estimated to be $150 billion, breached the cost escalation limit of the Nunn-McCurdy law. The Pentagon and Congress must now justify the continuation of the program. Congress and the American public must not waste this pivotal moment to study the reality of the nuclear weapon arms race and make a decision to shift course. It's past time to maximize our efforts to negotiate an end to the race and seek paths to reduce nuclear arms and the associated existential threat.

We face real challenges in this world, but too often, hyperbole and fear are being used to drive our decision-making. Competition need not mean hostility. It is time we returned to reason and rationality. Together, we must confront the challenges before us, not by building ever more dangerous weapons, but by placing the same priority on effective arms control and risk reduction measures that we currently place on modernization. We may face challenges, but we still have the choice of which future we will pursue. We know the risks, we know the dangers that modernizations and the inevitable arms race could hold, but that's why it is so important we redouble our efforts toward making de-escalation real. Let us take this moment, this opportunity, to engage in a meaningful dialogue and choose the path towards a safer and more world.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to urge Congress to address our misguided nuclear policy. For nearly 80 years, the threat of nuclear weapons has loomed large. As nations rearm and great power competition reemerges, we must remember the dangers of the past and avoid a new nuclear arms race.

For decades, stockpiling nuclear weapons gave us the power to destroy civilization many, many times over but did not provide greater security. After countless close calls, leaders wisely chose arms control, realizing that nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.

Sadly, we seem to have forgotten those lessons and have begun modernizing our arsenal, mistakenly believing that it will deliver security. Across the nuclear enterprise, costs soar while goals remain unclear.

Congress must debate the cost effectiveness of these modernization plans and stop the escalatory spiral before it is too late. Too often, those with the most strident voices carry the day.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Superintendent Pam Conklin upon her retirement as Superintendent of the Travis Unified School District after more than 25 years of service in education. Ms. Conklin's steadfast dedication to enhancing the quality of education in Solano County and advocating for her students has left a lasting impact on the Solano County community.

Ms. Conklin began her educational career as a teacher with the Novato Unified School District. Throughout her twenty-year tenure with the District, Ms. Conklin demonstrated a genuine commitment to fostering an environment of community and respect in her classrooms. She ultimately became the Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources for the District, where she spearheaded efforts to ensure all students, regardless of their background, can reach their full potential.

In 2015, her passion for education led her to serve as the Oakley Union Elementary School District Superintendent. During her tenure, her collaboration with the Contra Costa County community and her critical leadership helped ensure the continued success of the Oakley Union School District.

Upon her departure from the Oakley Union School District, Ms. Conklin began working at the Travis Unified School District as the Human Resources Administrator and in 2017, she began serving as Superintendent. Her critical efforts to advocate for the students, teachers, and families of Solano County and Travis Air Force Base were indispensable to our community.

As Superintendent, Ms. Conklin played a pivotal role in supporting Travis Air Force Base and helping nine schools in the District earn the designation of ``Purple Star Schools,'' schools that are committed to and equipped to meet the unique needs of military-affiliated students and their families.

While her leadership as Superintendent will surely be missed, Ms. Conklin's decades of service to the students of Northern California and Travis Unified School District have left an indelible legacy. I would like to extend my sincere gratitude to Ms. Conklin and wish her the best in her future endeavors.