Nunes Blog

The World This Week in Politics - State of the Union

noreply@blogger.com (Congressman Devin Nunes) — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 18:44:19 PST

Under President Obama, government has spent trillions on schools that don't educate, anti-poverty programs that don't lift people out of poverty, stimulus programs that don't stimulate, and broken health-care programs that threaten to bankrupt our nation.

Like FDR, Obama’s policies will reduce the income of wealthy Americans but they will at the same time make the poor poorer.

(listen to the full response here)

Obama High Priority: Killing San Joaquin Valley Jobs

noreply@blogger.com (Congressman Devin Nunes) — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 13:29:17 PST

President Obama claims to support jobs through investments in infrastructure. Yet his actions suggest his real priority is to deliver political favors to left-wing activists.

Here is what President Obama promised on November 2, 2011—

“no more earmarks, no more bridges to nowhere. We're going to stop the picking of projects based on political gain and start picking them based on two criteria: how badly they're needed out there and how much good they'll do for our economy.”

Today, the President announced 14 high priority federal infrastructure projects around the nation. According to the White House, “the President directed agencies to expedite environmental reviews and permit decisions for a selection of high priority infrastructure projects that will create a significant number of jobs” (see here).

One of the 14 projects is located in the San Joaquin Valley but it is expected to eliminate jobs, not create them. Conservative estimates of job losses, using the methodology of radical environmentalists, demonstrate that 3,000 jobs will be lost due to reduced water supplies (see explanation of reduced water supply and employment here). Also, due to the excessive cost of the project (more than $1 billion), taxpayers will be forced to shell out $21 million per fish for the “restored” salmon run.

With all of the significant challenges facing America today, including historic deficits, high unemployment and unprecedented debt, it is astounding that the President would view the job killing San Joaquin River restoration as a high national priority. However, it is not the first time we have witnessed politics and not policy rule the White House.

Less than two years ago the President offered a pre-election Halloween treat to Valley Democrats when he funded the infamous California high speed rail program in the Central Valley—an earmark that targeted assistance to one vulnerable Democratic Congressman. The project is a national disgrace and has been labeled the “train to nowhere” around the country (details here).

Today’s announcement has handed Senator Dianne Feinstein, the Natural Resources Defense Council and its allies an early Christmas treat by making the San Joaquin River restoration a high national priority. It will cost us precious water and thousands of jobs while damaging the environment by adding stress to a severely depleted aquifer.

For the people of the San Joaquin Valley, their communities and livelihoods, President Obama is likely to be remembered as the worst President in American history.

Got one of Obama's Green Jobs? Not likely...

noreply@blogger.com (Congressman Devin Nunes) — Wed, 12 Oct 2011 14:00:25 PDT

SHOCKING FINDING BY THE DEPT OF LABOR IG

2% SUCCESS RATE FOR OBAMA GREEN JOBS PROGRAM

The Department of Labor’s Inspector General (IG) recently issued a report on the status of a $500 million “green jobs” program designed by the President and congressional Democrats in 2009. The findings are disappointing, to say the least.

The program was funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act – the President’s costly $1.2 trillion “stimulus” failure – and was designed to procure employment for approximately 80,000 people by providing grants for labor exchange and job training projects. Two years after the program’s inception, $300 million remains unspent, a mere 15 percent of current participants have been provided with jobs, and only 2 percent of the targeted 69,717 participants have retained employment for at least 6 months.

These are underwhelming results. According to the IG, “[W]ith 61 percent of the training grant periods elapsed and only 10 percent of participants entered employment, there is no evidence that grantees will effectively use the funds and deliver targeted employment outcomes by the end of the grant periods." The IG further recommends that the bulk of the money allotted for the program be returned to the Treasury.

Salazar's Dishonest Agency Exposed

noreply@blogger.com (Congressman Devin Nunes) — Thu, 22 Sep 2011 14:50:56 PDT

Earlier today, I transmitted the following letter to Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar in response to his dishonest attacks against the San Joaquin Valley's Congressional delegation:

The Honorable Ken Salazar
Secretary of the Interior
U.S. Department of the Interior
1849 C Street, N.W.
Washington DC 20240

Dear Secretary Salazar,

I recently had the opportunity to read your remarks delivered at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco and was shocked by your callous disregard for the people suffering in the San Joaquin Valley. In the future, I hope you will consider broadening your audience to communities in the San Joaquin Valley. There are many venues available, including food banks, foreclosed homes and vacant buildings for you to use for your speech.

During your remarks, you called attention to and lauded the people who worked together to build our nation’s infrastructure, such as California’s state and federal water projects. You suggested that these bygone visionaries are the predecessors of men like yourself. However, those prior leaders worked to increase California’s fresh water supplies. You are working to implement policies that reduce them.

The facts speak for themselves. Under your leadership, the Department of Interior has systematically attacked the very infrastructure you praise. Worse, your actions related to the Delta have been exposed as politically motivated and illegal. This scandal, as outlined by the U.S. District Court’s recent admonition of your agency, is damning and should be the subject of Congressional Oversight Hearings.

Mr. Secretary, despite your attempt to cloak your actions in pragmatism, you and your agency have developed a draconian record unparalleled in recent history. Not only have you implemented illegal policies, but you have aided and abetted the extortionist practices of radical groups whose “environmentalism” comes a distant second to left-wing politics. In short, yours has been a job killing, infrastructure crippling agency – one that delivers artificial water shortages where crops once grew.

You should be ashamed of your Department and truly embarrassed by the decision handed down to you by the U.S. District Court. The transcript from the Motion to Stay hearing on the Delta smelt cases reads in part:

“[The federal government] haven't just violated the Endangered Species Act in producing an unlawful BiOp and unlawful and reasonable and prudent alternatives, they've also violated NEPA, which, in effect, prevented any rational, any what the Court would believe to be informed, competent and considerate reflective analysis of the human health and safety impacts, impacts on the State of California water supply and related impacts by not performing a NEPA analysis, not preparing an EIS and not following the law in any regard to that extent.”

The court went on to challenge the credibility of the federal government’s expert witnesses. These are the same witnesses you have relied on to bring economic destruction to the families in the San Joaquin Valley.

The Court also on the Fish and Wildlife Service’s expert witness:

“The Court finds that Dr. Norris' testimony, as it has been presented in this courtroom and now in her subsequent declaration, she may be a very reasonable person and she may be a good scientist, she may be honest, but she has not been honest with this Court. I find her to be incredible as a witness. I find her testimony to be that of a zealot. And I'm not overstating the case, I'm not being histrionic, I'm not being dramatic. I've never seen anything like it. And I've seen a few witnesses testify.”

The Court on the Bureau of Reclamation’s expert witness:

“I'm going to start with Mr. Feyrer…There can be no acceptance by a court of the United States of the conduct that has been engaged in in this case by these witnesses. And I am going to make a very clear and explicit record to support that finding of agency bad faith because, candidly, the only inference that the Court can draw is that it is an attempt to mislead and to deceive the Court into accepting what is not only not the best science, it's not science. There is speculation. There is primarily, mostly contradicted opinions that are presented that the Court not only finds no basis for, but they can't be anything but false because a witness can't testify under oath on a witness stand and then, within approximately a month, make statements that are so contradictory that they're absolutely irreconcilable with what has been stated earlier.”

Your tenure and that of the Obama Administration as a whole have made it abundantly clear that a utopian Green Agenda is more important than working families in America. The unemployed in the San Joaquin Valley have become collateral damage as you pursue control over our nation’s vast resources. Along the way, you have damaged the very integrity of science and undermined the democratic process.

In future, I hope your remarks will be tempered with recognition of the serious damage you and your Agency have done to this country. Starving people and communities of water, whatever the cause, is wrong. It is reminiscent of the actions of brutal dictators such as Robert Mugabe and Saddam Hussein who used water as a weapon against their own populations.

Sincerely,
DEVIN NUNES
Member of Congress

Charge and Response: President Obama’s Primetime Address

noreply@blogger.com (Congressman Devin Nunes) — Tue, 26 Jul 2011 07:07:21 PDT

Here is the GOP Conference response to the President's address last night.

Last night, President Obama issued a primetime address, telling the country he’s not going to “bore” them with the details of every plan – probably because he still doesn’t have one. Instead, the president stuck to the same class warfare rhetoric and embraced the plan put forward by Senator Harry Reid that gives him the immediate debt limit increase he wants, more budgeting gimmicks, and no reforms to restrain future spending. Below please find a rough transcript of some of the president’s claims with responses to help you correct the record.

Charge: “For the last decade, we have spent more money than we take in. In the year 2000, the government had a budget surplus. But instead of using it to pay off our debt, the money was spent on trillions of dollars in new tax cuts, while two wars and an expensive prescription drug program were simply added to our nation’s credit card.”

Response: What were yearly deficits when Republicans were in charge have become monthly deficits under President Obama. When Republicans controlled the House from 1995 through 2006, the average annual deficit was $96 billion. While Democrats controlled the House from 2007 through 2010, average monthly deficits were $75 billion and since President Obama took office the average monthly deficit has been $111 billion.

Charge: “But today, many Republicans in the House refuse to consider this kind of balanced approach – an approach that was pursued not only by President Reagan, but by the first President Bush, President Clinton, myself, and many Democrats and Republicans in the United States Senate.”

Response: President Obama is no Ronald Reagan, and the economic stats prove it. And Reagan supported a balanced budget amendment: “Only a constitutional amendment will do the job. We’ve tried the carrot, and it failed. With the stick of a Balanced Budget Amendment, we can stop government squandering, overtaxing ways, and save our economy.” – Ronald Reagan, April 29, 1982

Charge: “Most Americans, regardless of political party, don’t understand how we can ask a senior citizen to pay more for her Medicare before we ask corporate jet owners and oil companies to give up tax breaks that other companies don’t get.”

Response: President Obama and congressional Democrats already ended Medicare as we know by cutting $575 billion from the program. Instead of extending the solvency of Medicare, Democrats slashed Medicare spending in order to help pay for Democrats government takeover of healthcare.

Additionally, the president’s calls for job-killing tax hikes will do nothing to solve the problem but everything to ensure job creators sacrifice even more with higher taxes. In total, the tax increases on corporate jet owners, oil producers, and the “millionaires and billionaires” who earn more than $250,000 a couple, would raise revenue by approximately $855 billion—about 6.6 percent of the $12.8 trillion in debt the president will add over the next ten years.

Charge: President Obama now: “Understand – raising the debt ceiling does not allow Congress to spend more money. It simply gives our country the ability to pay the bills that Congress has already racked up…. In the past, raising the debt ceiling was routine. Since the 1950s, Congress has always passed it, and every President has signed it.”

Response: That’s a sharp contrast from what then-Senator Obama, said in 2006 when he voted against raising the debt ceiling: “The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies…Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”

Now the president has threatened to veto any debt limit increase that doesn’t go through 2013, putting his next election over protecting our next generation. Earlier this year, the Administration demanded a clean debt limit increase with no spending cuts. Now the president is demanding an increase that will last more than seventeen months to get him through the next election. According to economist Keith Hennessy, “Over the last twenty years Congress and the President have acted 44 times to increase the debt limit. Ten of those 44 times lasted more than a year. The other 34 were for less than a year.”

Charge: “Keep in mind that under a balanced approach, the 98% of Americans who make under $250,000 would see no tax increases at all… What we’re talking about under a balanced approach is asking Americans whose incomes have gone up the most over the last decade – millionaires and billionaires – to share in the sacrifice everyone else has to make.”

Response: The president continues to call for huge tax increases on individuals and small business owners earning above $200,000 for an individual or $250,000 for a couple—or as the president calls them, “millionaires and billionaires.” According to the president’s budget estimate, this would increase taxes by $709 billion over ten years. Nearly 75 percent of America’s small businesses file their taxes as individuals. Half of those small businesses would suffer from a higher tax burden under the President’s proposed tax increases, limiting their ability to hire more workers. As the National Federal of Independent Businesses said when the same tax hike was delayed until 2012, “Raising the top marginal tax rate would have hit small businesses the hardest just when the country needs them to invest, expand and hire new workers.”

Charge: “We have tried to live by the words that Jefferson once wrote: “Every man cannot have his way in all things…Without this mutual disposition, we are disjointed individuals, but not a society.”

Response: If we want to quote Jefferson, let’s take a look at all of the other quotes that warn us about public debt and his wish that the constitution included strict debt limitations:

“I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government; I mean an additional article taking from the Federal Government the power of borrowing.” – Thomas Jefferson letter to Virginia Senator John Taylor, 1789
“But with respect to future debt; would it not be wise and just for that nation to declare in the constitution they are forming that neither the legislature, nor the nation itself can validly contract more debt, than they may pay within their own age, or within the term of 19 years.” – Thomas Jefferson, Letter to James Madison, September 6, 1789

Debt Ceiling Increase in Exchange for Budget Cuts?

noreply@blogger.com (Congressman Devin Nunes) — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 11:19:04 PDT

A bill will be considered on the House Floor next week (final details pending). It will contain spending reforms in exchange for a debt limit increase. An overview of the plan is below.

The Current Plan

The current plan cuts total spending by $111 billion in FY 2012. The savings are divided as follows: reduce non-security discretionary spending below 2008 levels, which saves $76 billion; $35 billion cut to non-veterans, non-Medicare, non-Social Security mandatory spending; defense budget at President’s Budget level.

Total federal spending is scaled back based on the glide path for the fiscal years below:

2012, 22.5% of GDP
2013, 21.7% of GDP
2014, 20.8% of GDP
2015, 20.2% of GDP
2016, 20.2% of GDP
2017, 20.0% of GDP
2018, 19.7% of GDP
2019, 19.9% of GDP
2020, 19.9% of GDP
2021, 19.9% of GDP

A final component of the plan allows an increase in the debt limit but requires the passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment before granting the increase.

Distorted Water 2011

noreply@blogger.com (Congressman Devin Nunes) — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 16:13:46 PDT

Please check out the latest version of Distorted Water. In it I tackle many of the distortions and false statements that have been levied against the San Joaquin Valley Water Reliability Act, H.R. 1837, by radicals in the environmental movement and their allies in the drive-by media.

Senate Democrats Declare Water War

noreply@blogger.com (Congressman Devin Nunes) — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 15:43:33 PDT

by NUNES STAFF

Last week, the House Natural Resources Committee held a hearing about the San Joaquin Valley Water Reliability Act. The bill, which is co-authored by valley Republicans Devin Nunes, Kevin McCarthy, and Jeff Denham, generated strong opposition from Democrat lawmakers but has the backing of a re-invigorated Republican Conference and its leadership.

Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy made a rare appearance at the subcommittee hearing in support of the bill and reminded his colleagues that Governor Brown had declared an end to California’s drought. He continued that California’s snow-pack had reached 165% this year but that farmers would not get 100% of their water. “That’s like a company having its best profits ever but telling its employees they will only get 80% of their paycheck,” said McCarthy. “That’s unacceptable.”

Nunes and his allies are seeking to achieve several major changes to the management of California’s water infrastructure. Their plan includes the restoration of a bipartisan agreement known as the Bay-Delta Accord. It also revamps the San Joaquin River restoration, replacing it with an economically responsible and environmentally feasible fishery— saving taxpayers a billion dollars.

Rep. John Garamendi (D-Walnut Grove), who had touted the Delta Accord as a model agreement in the 1990s, shifted position dramatically and equated it as a declaration of war with no hope of Senate passage. Shortly after the hearing, California’s Senior Senator Dianne Feinstein told the San Francisco Chronicle, "I strongly oppose this bill, which I believe is dramatic overkill."

During his opening statement, Garemendi decried the bill’s pre-emption of state law saying “this little piece of genius” would end collaboration between state and federal water projects. The bill “makes it virtually impossible,” he said. Westlands representative Tom Birmingham took aim at Garamendi’s interpretation of the bill and corrected him on historic and current operation of the projects. Federal law already pre-empts state law concerning project operations on the Trinity, he reminded the committee, and there was no similar outrage when that pre-emption occurred.

When asked about opposition from Senate Democrats, Nunes said he was disappointed but not surprised. “This is a declaration of war on the only meaningful plan before Congress to solve the San Joaquin Valley water crisis.” Nunes continued that if “California’s senators would change their tune if Congress imposed a 70% reduction on deliveries from Hetch Hetchy. Senator Feinstein would no doubt be happy to hand the City of San Francisco’s water over unconditionally since she thinks it will save the Delta.”

Feinstein transmitted her official opposition to the bill just days after attending a fundraiser at Harris Ranch, which is located in the San Joaquin Valley—only miles from water starved farmland. According to those in attendance, Feinstein committed to working on a solution. “I don’t see how anyone with valley interests in mind can trust them, which is why I have been talking to Senate Republicans,” said Nunes.

Nunes also sought to remind critics that there are many options on the table to gain passage of legislation and that he would be leveraging all of them to aid the San Joaquin Valley. This will undoubtedly keep the bill’s opponents on their toes. House Appropriators have already stripped funding for the San Joaquin River Settlement from the federal budget, a major blow to the plan which is already off schedule and underfunded.

Once lawmakers had completed their opening remarks, testimony was received from local water districts, as well as state and federal representatives. Obama and Brown Administration officials opposed the bill, maintaining their view that the Delta pumps were damaging the ecosystem, impacting a number of species including the smelt, salmon and killer whale. Administration officials also touted the importance of current policies, which they described as balanced, to protect the Delta ecosystem.

Advocates of H.R. 1837 were quick to note, however, that no new evidence was provided to support these conclusions. The disclosure of scientific evidence to support pumping restrictions was made necessary by a U.S. District Court ruling in May. The court determined that the government had failed to base its decisions on science and sent regulators back to the drawing table.

Kole Upton, a Madera farmer and former San Joaquin River Settlement negotiator, rejected Interior’s testimony that current policies were balanced and called for the replacement of the current river restoration plan as envisioned by H.R. 1837. Upton explained that farmers were being subject to a slow death due to water diversions and that broken promises related to the San Joaquin river deal convinced him to seek changes.

The Kern County Water Agency also offered testimony, indicating that H.R. 1837 would restore stability to the Delta and improve water supplies. The agency’s representative, James Beck, said that all water contractors, state and federal, would be protected under the proposed law— supporting Nunes’ contention that his goal is not to harm any water contractors. This testimony undermined one of the key arguments made by bill opponents, which suggest that a small minority would benefit under the bill.

When asked about the allegation that his bill would come at the expense of other water contractors and the environment, Nunes was dismissive. “They are attempting to deceive the public which is the only way they can survive. They think they can obstruct this legislation by dividing California’s embattled water districts and hiding their own financial interests. It won’t work.”

Nunes then described an alliance of convenience between environmental activists, a small number of Delta farmers and salmon fishermen, indicating that each will likely be represented at an additional hearing called by committee Democrats who are attempting to slow passage of the bill. “They have all benefited from the status quo. Delta farmers have been able to hide from reality on their islands, fishermen have filled their pockets with tax dollars, and radical environmentalists have assumed greater control over the state’s water,” said Nunes.

Delta farmers may fear the upending of current water management policies because those policies have to-date placed the financial and operational burdens for Delta restoration on others – primarily south of Delta water contractors. Under current law, little attention has been paid to this small but vocal group of farmers who enjoy unlimited access to the Delta’s fresh water supplies. During panel questioning, Rep. Jeff Denham underscored the uneven burden placed on water contractors by pointing out that San Francisco secures its water via pipeline from Hetch Hetchy, completely bypassing the Delta. This has allowed Bay Area activists to escape the consequences of their actions while forcing others to make sacrifices.

Similarly, elements of the west’s small sport and commercial salmon fishing industries have benefited from the status quo. The 1,722 permit holding fishermen collected hundreds of millions of federal tax dollars from 2007-2009. Nunes calls this money a payoff for their environmental activism, which was enacted under Democratic supermajorities. Several recipients made out with more than half a million dollars, with 213 fishermen walking away with six figure checks. And while some have claimed that the industry is 100% unemployed, regulators documented deliveries of sardine, mackerel, anchovy, squid and other species, effectively refuting the allegation that salmon fishermen are unable to work.

Nunes says that despite controversy generated by these groups, House leaders remain unfazed. A markup and full House consideration will likely follow this summer. Meanwhile, San Joaquin Valley residents have benefited from significant exposure beyond the greater Central Valley. The region’s water crisis has been highlighted nationally and is followed by the Fox News Channel’s Sean Hannity and others. In 2009, the Wall Street Journal opined that Central Valley farmers are California’s new endangered species. This prognosis may change if House Republicans succeed.

Food Shortages in America?

noreply@blogger.com (Congressman Devin Nunes) — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 11:12:19 PDT

by DEVIN NUNES

It’s time to do something about rising food prices. As governments around the world move to secure grain supplies, the United States is pursuing policies that take more farmland out of production.

The man-made drought in California is one example. But there are others. The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), a system that pays farmers not to farm, is another. Originally intended to address serious problems with soil erosion and environmental degradation, the CRP has grown to consume more than 30 million acres of American farmland. No crops can be grown on this ground.

Under normal circumstances, the United States may be able to afford the luxury of idling farmland that could otherwise be producing food. But we are not facing normal circumstances. In fact, according to USDA and other agencies, we are facing the real possibility of grain shortages. This means higher food costs and serious economic damage.

For this reason, I and others are urging the President to allow willing farmers with arable land to exit from the CRP. See the letter I sent to President Obama, with the support of 25 House colleagues here.

Sensational Disaster Coverage Harms U.S. Interests

noreply@blogger.com (Congressman Devin Nunes) — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 11:12:29 PDT

by DEVIN NUNES

With all of the sensational news coverage surrounding Japan’s nuclear crisis, I thought it was time that someone begin a rational discussion.

The 9.0 magnitude earthquake and unprecedented tsunami that followed has caused mass devastation and enormous human suffering in Japan. Thousands are dead and authorities are struggling to deliver essential services to prevent further loss of life. The facts on the ground are horrific by any standard and recovery will take considerable time.

As a result of the nuclear emergency, the crisis is ongoing and it is important for U.S. nuclear safety officials and public health agencies to closely monitor the situation. Americans are rightly concerned and deserve a factual reporting of the crisis. Unfortunately, we are instead being bombarded by sensational headlines and commentary that stretches the bounds of scientific reality to the point of utter fiction. Based on media reporting, one might reasonably assume that the embattled Japanese reactors were soon to engulf the island nation in a nuclear explosion – sending radioactive debris akin to Chernobyl into the atmosphere. But this is not a scientific possibility; it will not happen.

While the news accounts we are witnessing are highly troubling and downright frightening, there is no threat to the West Coast of the United States nor is there a threat to the lives of the Japanese people who have been evacuated to safe distances during the crisis. Let me briefly outline why:

All of the reactors that are in a state of nuclear emergency have been shut down. They automatically shut down when a seismic event occurs.
The crisis is resulting from the loss of primary power due to the earthquake, as well as the loss of backup generators due to the tsunami. Reactor cooling was not functioning properly, resulting in the threat of a meltdown at several reactors.
If the reactors experience a core meltdown because they cannot be adequately cooled, the containment system will protect the human population. When Three Mile Island experienced a partial meltdown in 1979, the containment system was almost entirely undamaged with less than 5/8 of an inch of shielding impacted.
Assuming the containment system partially fails (or fails entirely) the resulting radiation will not consume Japan and will not expose the West Coast of the United States. At this point, some reports indicate there could be damage to one of the reactors containment structures.
The radiation levels currently reported are not lethal. They have spiked within close range of the reactors but have also quickly dissipated.
The containment system, composed of steel and concrete, has not been destroyed despite the magnitude of the earthquake and the impact of the tsunami.
Steam is being vented from the reactor core to reduce pressure but that steam does not carry lethal radiation and it is quickly dissipated.
Fires and explosions at the plant are serious but they were not nuclear explosions, nuclear fires, or radioactive explosions. They were the result of hydrogen buildup – which is a byproduct of emergency cooling efforts.

Clearly the situation remains fluid and in the final analysis there will be important lessons learned from the crisis. However, our long-term economic growth and the goal of energy independence will require large scale deployment of state-of-the-art nuclear energy facilities. That is what I propose in A Roadmap for America’s Energy Future – the all of the above solution to U.S. energy needs.

You can follow updates on the crisis in Japan via the International Atomic Energy Agencies website http://www.iaea.org/.

You can also monitor the U.S. energy policy debate on my new Facebook page.

A Roadmap for America's Energy Future

noreply@blogger.com (Congressman Devin Nunes) — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 11:12:40 PDT

by DEVIN NUNES
Originally printed in the Washington Examiner.

As tension and uncertainty in the Middle East rises and revolutions spread in the Middle East and North Africa, Americans are once again confronting the financial and national security consequences of our dependence on foreign oil.

Over the years, the American people have been promised “energy independence” by Democrats and Republicans from different Administrations and Congresses. Whether the mantra is “drill baby drill” or a green energy revolution, we have all been consistently disappointed by the outcome.

Nothing done by our government in the past several decades has actually helped to achieve the goal of energy independence, or for that matter, kept energy prices affordable for American families. Quite the reverse is true. We are more dependent today than ever before and far more economically vulnerable than at any point in our nation’s history. Today, I and others will introduce legislation that will finally deliver on the energy security promises made by leaders past and present – promises that began during the 1973 oil embargo, our nation’s first call to action.

The plan, known as A Roadmap for America’s Energy Future, recognizes the importance of oil, gas, coal, and oil shale to the American consumer, as well as our nation’s economy. It opens up for exploration and development the vast resources known to exist throughout U.S. territories on land and sea. This unlocked energy will fuel job growth and it will assure Americans access to stable and affordable energy.

At the same time, the plan recognizes that dependence on any one fuel source is dangerous, particularly a finite resource. As such, the Energy Roadmap will make the necessary investments to transition our economy to renewable and advanced energy alternatives over time. This is achieved at no expense to the taxpayer. Furthermore, unlike current subsidies and tax credits, new forms of energy will be available to Americans on a cost competitive basis.

The Energy Roadmap accomplishes these goals by depositing lease and royalty revenue associated with fossil fuel development into a renewable energy trust fund. Those dollars are then made available to energy producers through a reverse auction – ending the government’s current process of selecting winners and losers.

This market-based way of providing federal assistance will ensure the cheapest and most efficient technology thrives. It will also open up the alternative energy market to greater innovation and competition, a sharp contrast to the existing system of subsidies and support which are subject to the influence of lobbyists and activists through political cronyism.

Another component of the Energy Roadmap establishes a mandate to site 200 nuclear reactors by 2040. New streamlined regulations and a system to manage waste will help drive private sector investments in these facilities, which today are mired in red tape, lawsuits and the liability associated with the storage of used fuel. Nuclear power is essential to achieving an abundant and affordable supply of electricity to fuel America’s economic growth and will provide the base load power needed to allow significant growth in next generation electric vehicles.

While having the desire to become a renewable society is reasonable, that should not prevent us from using traditional fuels to keep the economic engine running in the interim. Congress should pass A Roadmap for America’s Energy Future so that our government can finally live up to the commitments it has made to the American people to deliver affordable energy now and for the future.

Aid and Comfort to the Enemy?

noreply@blogger.com (Congressman Devin Nunes) — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 11:13:12 PDT

by DEVIN NUNES

Special Interests Line Up Against San Joaquin Valley Communities

Early Saturday morning, the House passed a 2011 federal spending bill which contained provisions to protect the water supplies of San Joaquin Valley communities. The language has two parts. One component will ban funding to implement the flawed San Joaquin River Settlement and the other will keep the Delta pumps operating for the remainder of the year.

You can read the water language in the bill by clicking here.

You can read my Congressional Record Statement explaining the water language by clicking here.

The fate of these important provisions in the Senate is uncertain. Even prior to House passage, Senator Dianne Feinstein (see here) and the Obama Administration were in full attack mode. Feinstein, who is trying to get the Delta declared a National Heritage Area, has for years fought efforts to provide relief to our communities (see her on the Senate Floor). To compound our problems, the Obama Administration is preparing to roll out a new government bureaucracy to oversee the left’s Delta agenda (click here).

Several groups claiming to represent the interests of farmers are working to block House Republican efforts in the Senate. They include the Friant Water Authority, which has become an apologist for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and its extreme environmental politics. Another is a large corporate farming interest allied with Senator Dianne Feinstein, Paramount Farming Company. Despite efforts to cloak their opposition in well crafted talking points, environmental politics and not the interests of San Joaquin Valley residents are responsible for their views.

You can read the Friant Water Authority and Paramount Farming Company letters here.

As House Republicans work to end the government-imposed drought, liberals and their allies in the environmental movement are stepping up their attacks. It is unacceptable for groups claiming to represent farmers and rural San Joaquin Valley communities to provide cover to politicians who are responsible for our region’s water shortages. You can be certain that I will continue to call them as I see them – exposing the truth behind who is helping and who is hurting efforts to restore our region’s access to reliable water supplies.

Valley Republicans Seek Options for High Speed Rail Money

noreply@blogger.com (Congressman Devin Nunes) — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 11:13:31 PDT

by DEVIN NUNES

Today, I joined my colleagues in the House, Kevin McCarthy (CA-22) and Jeff Denham (CA-19), in the introduction of legislation that will allow the State of California to redirect federal high speed rail funding to finance long overdue and urgently needed road repairs along the State Route 99 corridor.

If state and local leaders choose to support this legislation, they will have sufficient funding to establish a six-lane freeway from Sacramento to Bakersfield while vastly improving the heavily congested corridor’s safety and enhancing the region’s air quality.

The economic and environmental benefits of SR 99 improvements are strongly contrasted by the uncertainty of California’s now infamous bullet train, which has been described by the national press as “the train to nowhere.” Providing the state the option to redirect high speed rail funding to SR 99 will give state and local leaders the opportunity to step-back from what is likely to become a bottomless pit of spending.

At this time, state leaders admit that California is poised to spend $58 billion – using ultra conservative state estimates – to build the phantom bullet train. However, the actual price tag is likely to exceed the combined federal highway spending in California for the 50 years from 1957-2007 (if it is ever completed). In addition, a host of independent watchdog groups, including the State Auditor, have raised serious questions about the project and question whether it is even viable. [State Auditor's Report, Legislative Analyst's Report, Transportation Studies at the University of California, Berkeley]

Meanwhile, nearly everyone agrees that the State Route 99 corridor – one of California’s most seriously congested and under-funded highways – is in need of major infrastructure improvements. For this reason, I and other Valley Republicans believe California should have the ability to transfer a portion or the entirety of the federal high-speed rail funds to improve Highway 99. [see bill text here]

Water Wars Update

noreply@blogger.com (Congressman Devin Nunes) — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 11:13:56 PDT

by DEVIN NUNES

This week, the House will vote on a federal spending bill – the 2011 Continuing Resolution (CR). This CR, which funds the operation of the federal government for the current fiscal year, is necessary because last year Democratic leaders failed to pass a budget.

While much of the public attention is appropriately focused on efforts to reduce spending, there are also important provisions in the CR that relate to our communities in the San Joaquin Valley.

Specifically, thanks to the support of Republican leaders, I was able to get language included in the CR that will restore and protect our water supplies (see bill text).

The language included in the base bill of the 2011 Continuing Resolution will prevent any federal funds from being used to implement the biological decisions responsible for reduced Delta pumping – effectively guaranteeing normal pump operations for 2011.

Furthermore, it will ban federal funding for the restoration of the San Joaquin River during the 2011 fiscal year, the first step in Republican efforts to replace the flawed billion dollar salmon run. It also demonstrates Congressional intent to suspend restoration flows for 2011 thereby keeping the water on the east side of the valley.

In place of the existing restoration plan, which spends $21 million per salmon, I am working with House leaders to establish both an environmentally and economically responsible San Joaquin River restoration. This will include a year-round, live river on the San Joaquin but will also ensure a robust east side agriculture economy.

However, despite the inclusion of this important language in the CR, there are a number of obstacles ahead. There is no question that liberal leaders will offer amendments to strip the San Joaquin valley water language from the CR. That is why it is essential for California Democrats to unite in our defense. Should we succeed, the pressure will be on our Senators. Will they choose two inch bait fish and the junk science now rejected by the federal court or will they choose valley workers and their families?

Public Pension Hygiene Act

noreply@blogger.com (Congressman Devin Nunes) — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 11:09:54 PDT

The first reform step is exposing the true size of the funding hole.
January 22, 2011

by THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

We're so accustomed to misnamed legislation like the Employee Free Choice Act (card check) that it's hard to believe that a welcome proposal called the Public Employee Pension Transparency Act describes what it actually purports to do. To wit, prohibit public pension bailouts by the federal government and expose the $3.5 trillion of unfunded public pension liabilities that local and state governments have obscured.

Most state and local governments currently use their own estimated rate of return on their investments to discount their liabilities. By projecting unrealistically high rates of return, states minimize their unfunded liabilities, at least on paper. Lower unfunded liabilities in turn allow them to reduce how much they and public employees must contribute to their pension funds. Inflated investment assumptions are one reason that public pension funds are unfunded to the tune of $3.5 trillion.

Public pensions typically assume an 8% annual return on average, but over the past five years state pension funds with more than $5 billion in assets have earned only 4.5%. Taxpayers must make up the difference between what the funds earn and what they need to pay retirees. For Californians that is roughly $5 billion this year.

Local taxpayers are already seeing their services whacked and taxes raised to fill these pension holes. University of California students will have to pony up 8% more next year for tuition to offset an expected $500 million in state budget cuts. Illinois residents will soon pay 67% more in income taxes, but taxpayers won't feel the full brunt for another decade when the funds begin running out of money. When Chicago's pension fund goes dry around 2019, over half of the city's revenue will be dedicated to pensions.

In the 1950s and 1960s, many private employers obscured their liabilities the way governments are doing today, though they didn't have a public backstop. Many funds went broke. In 1974 Congress established minimum funding requirements and penalized companies that underfunded pensions. The law also required companies to report and discount their liabilities using a more conservative rate of return.

These changes exploded liabilities and prompted many companies to switch from defined-benefit plans to defined-contribution plans like 401(k)s. While a majority of private workers now have defined-contribution plans, defined-benefit plans remain the norm in government.

Enter the Public Employee Pension Transparency Act, which is sponsored by House Republicans Devin Nunes and Darrell Issa of California and Wisconsin's Paul Ryan. Their bill would encourage governments to switch to defined-contribution plans by revealing the true magnitude of their unfunded liabilities. States and municipalities would have to report their liabilities to the U.S. Treasury using their own rosy investment forecasts as well as a more realistic Treasury bond rate (to be determined by a formula).

This data would make clear how much taxpayers potentially owe and increase pressure on lawmakers to fix their plans. For instance, Illinois estimated in 2009 that it had a roughly $85 billion unfunded liability. Using a Treasury discount rate, that unfunded liability balloons to $167 billion.

Out of respect for state sovereignty, the federal government shouldn't and can't tell local governments how to run or fund their pensions. But the bill doesn't do so and it also doesn't force states to fund their plans using a lower discount rate. States don't even have to comply with the law, though they would forego their ability to sell federally subsidized, tax-exempt bonds if they don't.

The bill may not persuade states like Illinois and California to revamp their pensions, but it will reveal how broken they are—and that's a start.

Printed in the Wall Street Journal on January 22, 2011.

Crying Over Unspilled Milk

noreply@blogger.com (Congressman Devin Nunes) — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 11:12:03 PDT

Land Of Milk and Regulation

Preventing the next dairy farm oil slick

by THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

President Obamasays he wants to purge regulations that are "just plain dumb," likehis humorous State of the Union bit about salmon. So perhaps he should review anew rule that is supposed to prevent oil spills akin to the Gulf Coastdisaster—at the nation's dairy farms.

Two weeks ago,the Environmental Protection Agency finalized a rule that subjects dairyproducers to the Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure program, whichwas created in 1970 to prevent oil discharges in navigable waters or nearshorelines. Naturally, it usually applies to oil and natural gas outfits. Butthe EPA has discovered that milk contains "a percentage of animal fat,which is a non-petroleum oil," as the agency put it in the FederalRegister.

In other words,the EPA thinks the next blowout may happen in rural Vermont or Wisconsin. Otherdangerous pollution risks that somehow haven't made it onto the EPA docketinclude leaks from maple sugar taps and the vapors at Badger State breweries.

The EPA rulerequires farms—as well as places that make cheese, butter, yogurt, ice creamand the like—to prepare and implement an emergency management plan in the eventof a milk catastrophe. Among dozens of requirements, farmers must train firstresponders in cleanup protocol and build "containment facilities"such as dikes or berms to mitigate offshore dairy slicks.

These plans mustbe in place by November, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture is even runninga $3 million program "to help farmers and ranchers comply with on-farm oilspill regulations." You cannot make this stuff up.

The final ruleis actually more lenient than the one the EPA originally proposed. The agencytried to claim jurisdiction over the design specifications of "milkcontainers and associated piping and appurtenances," until the industrypointed out that such equipment was already overseen by the Food and DrugAdministration, the USDA and state inspectors. The EPA conceded, "Whilethese measures are not specifically intended for oil spill prevention, webelieve they may prevent discharges of oil in quantities that areharmful."

We appreciateMr. Obama's call for more regulatory reason, but it would be more credible ifone of his key agencies wasn't literally crying over unspilled milk.

For the article online: http://on.wsj.com/fhqu0w

Feinstein Embraces “Pearl Harbor Style” Legislating

noreply@blogger.com (Congressman Devin Nunes) — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 11:14:39 PDT

by DEVIN NUNES

Radical environmentalists have realized that they cannot win a public debate arguing that a two-inch bait fish is more important than families in the San Joaquin Valley and are scrambling for a new message. They are also crafting a sneak attack to take control of our water.

The Left’s need to re-image the Delta water debate is particularly desperate due to a ruling in the U.S. District Court which rebuked the federal government as having used “sloppy science” to justify the man-made drought. Judge Oliver Wanger ordered federal agencies back to the drawing board.

However, the Left is already pressing ahead with its backup plan with the help of Senator Dianne Feinstein. That plan is concealed in massive $1.1 trillion federal spending bill for 2012 and would designate the entire Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta as a National Heritage Area. If it becomes law, the Heritage designation would establish a new federal mandate to protect the natural, scenic, historic, cultural, and recreational resources of the Delta - a thinly veiled effort to cut off valley water supplies.

Feinstein’s controversial proposal is opposed by water users, farmers, and rural communities. They understand that National Heritage Areas create another layer of government between water rights owners and the government who controls delivery. Many others would also raise concerns if they knew Congress was considering the creation of this new National Heritage Area. However Democratic leaders, at the request of Senator Feinstein, are working to bypass public debate. They want to sneak the Heritage designation into law by air-dropping it into the nearly two thousand page Fiscal Year 2012 Omnibus Appropriations bill (see page 880).

The action taking place this week is particularly outrageous coming from Senator Feinstein, who just over a year ago came unhinged when Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) tried to restore Delta pumping through an amendment on the Senate Floor.

Senator DeMint’s amendment came in the light of day and was subject to both a full public debate as well as a separate vote. Yet Senator Feinstein persisted in describing it as a “Pearl Harbor” style of legislating (see the outrageous video here).

What a difference an election makes. With her allies losing power in the House, Feinstein apparently has changed her view on sneak attacks.

Public Pension Bill Making Headlines

noreply@blogger.com (Congressman Devin Nunes) — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 11:15:59 PDT

Pension Woes Prompt GOP Move
by THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

The new Republican House leadership, whose party benefited in November from public antipathy toward the bailout of banks, is moving to avoid a federal bailout of state and local pension funds.

Congress has little authority over, or responsibility for, state and local public-employee pensions. But with pension liabilities increasingly stressing state and municipal finances, the prospect that the problem will end up in Washington's lap has some academics and politicians urging that the federal government move preemptively.

In New Jersey, concerns about cuts in public pensions have led to a rise in retirements this year.

The latest wrinkle: A bill introduced last week by three prominent House Republicans to deny states and localities the ability to sell tax-exempt bonds—the lifeblood for many governments—unless they report their pension-fund liabilities to the Treasury Department. The federal tax-free status of interest on municipal bonds helps generate demand for the bonds and lowers government borrowing costs.

The goal, the congressmen say, is to get a better handle on funding woes of public pensions, which they say are not always forthcoming about the true extent of their financial exposure.

For decades, the federal government has regulated corporate pension funds and a federal agency, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., can bail them out.

But there is no such federal backstop for state and local employee pensions. Some argue that Washington would be hard pressed to ignore a pension plan if it threatened a major government insolvency.

"The point of this is to smoke the rats out of their holes," said Rep. Devin Nunes of California, who introduced the bill. "What is the total amount of pension debt? No one really knows."

Read the full article from the Wall Street Journal here.

Pension reality check
The Washington Post
December 8, 2010

State and local government spending stands at 12.6 percent of U.S. gross domestic product - the highest share ever. To be sure, this largely reflects the recession, during which state and local spending has been growing more slowly than it did earlier in the decade while GDP has been falling or stagnant. Still, long-term state and local financial commitments, above all for pensions and health-care benefits of public employees, are driving much of the cost. And since states have to balance their budgets, spiraling employee compensation threatens to crowd out the provision of public services such as education, recreation and road maintenance.

Getting states, counties and cities back on a sustainable budget path is primarily their own responsibility. But federal policies can help - or hurt. At the moment, Congress is considering one of each type. On the helpful side, a trio of Republican members of the House - Paul Ryan (Wis.), Darrell Issa (Calif.) and Devin Nunes (Calif.) - have proposed a bill that would require all state and local governments that issue federally tax-exempt bonds to file accurate annual reports of their pension liabilities with the Treasury Department.

Public-employee pension funds are notorious for understating their liabilities through the use of vague projections and rosy investment-return assumptions. This proposal would force pension funds to show what they would earn if invested only in super-safe Treasury securities - a reasonable point of comparison given that pension benefits are usually guaranteed by law. And the bill would declare that the federal government is not liable for covering state and local pension fund shortfalls, another incentive for such plans to enact reforms.

Read the column in the Washington Post here.

Accounting for Public Pensions
The New York Times
December 10, 2010

As companies moved away from defined-benefit plans, most cities and states did not follow. One reason for that may have been that the Government Accounting Standards Board — the public sector equivalent of FASB — has done much less to force good disclosures, or comparable ones.

Having limited information available can obscure problems, but when concerns arise, a lack of good data can have the opposite effect; people assume the worst.

Estimates of unfunded pension liabilities can be breathtaking. Two economists, Robert Novy-Marx of the University of Rochester and Joshua Rauh of Northwestern, put the figures at $3 trillion for state governments and almost $600 billion for municipalities. Those figures are far greater than official government figures, and are highly dependent on interest rate levels, which can and do fluctuate. They may be too high, but there is no way to be sure of that.

Some people say the 1974 passage of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, known as Erisa, led to the demise of private pension plans because companies for the first time really had to honor pension promises. But the trend did not pick up steam until the accountants forced disclosure of real numbers. Most state constitutions have long barred cutting public pension benefits that have been earned, but that fact alone did not force change.

This week, three Republican members of Congress, led by Representative Devin Nunes of California, a senior member of the Ways and Means Committee, proposed legislation to force states and cities to report pension fund liabilities on the same basis, and to force them to disclose market values of assets. The bill would not even allow smoothing, so the state of pension funding will seem volatile as markets rise and fall. Such volatility could be reduced by putting more pension money into bonds than stocks, but doing so would force governments to admit they were likely to earn less on investments, and thus need to put even more money into pension plans.

Read the complete column in the New York Times here.

Immigrant Children Used as a Political Prop by House Democrats

noreply@blogger.com (Congressman Devin Nunes) — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 11:16:25 PDT

by DEVIN NUNES

Today, all of America witnessed one more example of the current majority’s failed leadership when immigrant children were used as a political prop by House Democratic leaders.

For the past four years, Democrats had significant majorities in Congress as well as two Presidents – a Republican then a Democrat - willing to sign an immigration reform bill. However, instead of dealing with the issue in the light of day with public hearings and a thoughtful, deliberate, and responsible process, Democrats chose to force a vote on legislation during the waning days of a lame-duck Congress with little chance for debate, no chance of amendment, and no chance of getting to the President’s desk.

Make no mistake, the activity in the House today was nothing more than an attempt by Democrats in Congress to pander to Hispanic voters for partisan political purposes.

High Speed Train Wreck

noreply@blogger.com (Congressman Devin Nunes) — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 11:17:42 PDT

by DEVIN NUNES
Originally printed in the Fresno Bee.

Just days before Halloween and about a week prior to the general election, the White House announced billions in stimulus spending around the country. These grants, a by-product of the stimulus slush fund created by Congressional Democrats last year, were used to provide last-minute re-election assistance to struggling Democrats.

Republicans, including myself, unanimously opposed passage of the trillion dollar boondoggle that financed these grants. At the time, I told The Bee and others that stimulus spending would not create sustainable employment, which it hasn't, but that it would be used to finance the re-election efforts of Democrats, which it was. The Bee not only failed to report my observations during the stimulus debate, but also failed to report the facts as they unfolded in our own community days before the election.

The president's effort to secure the re-election of Democrats who voted for ObamaCare manifested itself locally in a $715 million grant for high-speed rail in the San Joaquin Valley. The announcement of this funding rightly spurred outrage on the part of fiscal conservatives who not only see the stimulus spending as reckless, but view the high-speed rail project to be inappropriate, given California's financial crisis.

Setting aside the timing and manner in which the funds were awarded, as well as the fact that this spending has driven the national debt to an unprecedented and unsustainable level, it is important to understand the facts about high-speed rail in the San Joaquin Valley.

California's effort to establish a high-speed rail system has been chugging along since 1996 at anything but high speed. The projected cost of the system now exceeds $40 billion, but does anyone believe that this will be the true cost?

In one year, from 2008 to 2009, the High Speed Rail Authority was forced to raise its cost projections from $32.6 to $42.6 billion. Indeed, the final price tag of high-speed rail could easily exceed the combined federal highway spending in California for the 50 years from 1957-2007.

Given the enormous cost increases of California's high-speed rail so far, it is not unreasonable to question whether this project really has the necessary funding. Yet some have suggested that the $715 million grant announcement by the White House solidifies the future of the project. The fine print tells a different story and shows that this enormous undertaking will require billions in bonds, if the state can sell them.

However, even if the funding arrives as planned, Californians are likely to witness obstacles to their first ride on their new bullet train. The nonpartisan state auditor's report on California's High Speed Rail Authority says that the plan "risks delays or an incomplete system because of inadequate planning, weak oversight, and lax contract management."

Recent celebrations over high-speed rail in the Valley should be viewed with skepticism by taxpayers. Particularly when those dollars are promised by the now infamous Dustbowl Democrats who helped take away our region's water supply, decimated our timber industry and fueled a mass exodus of small businesses and entrepreneurs. Indeed, recent years have witnessed high levels of domestic outmigration as long-time residents vote with their feet by leaving the state.

The Bee and other proponents of the high-speed rail plan need to take an honest look at the cost of this plan within the context of the fiscal realities we face. To do otherwise risks a high-speed train wreck of public debt, which may or may not include a completed bullet train.

Now is not the time for fairytales about the future of travel in California, nor is it time to celebrate jobs that have yet to materialize.

The passage of time will tell taxpayers whether they were tricked or treated by President Obama's Halloween surprise. In the meantime, I would hope that Bee writers would refrain from mischaracterizing my remarks in an attempt to blame Republicans in order to protect the Dustbowl Democrats from their own political stunts.

Westlands Water Boarding: The Truth About The Valley Drought Masters.

noreply@blogger.com (Congressman Devin Nunes) — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 11:18:21 PDT

by DEVIN NUNES

In 1938, after signing the Munich Agreement with Nazi Germany, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain triumphantly returned to the United Kingdom to declare that the agreement will bring “peace for our time.”

His policy of appeasement and failure to challenge German aggression resulted in six years of war and inevitably dragged the United States into World War II.

The world paid a terrible price to learn that appeasement cannot bring peace but only delays war and emboldens aggressors.

Over the past five years, we have seen another kind of appeasement unfold in the San Joaquin Valley. Water managers have made the decision to appease radical environmentalists who have long sought to replace humans in the valley with tumble weeds and dust devils.

Like Chamberlain, water managers and some farming groups capitulated to a dangerous aggressor. In doing so, they adopted their own version of the Munich Agreement.

The San Joaquin River Settlement was sold as an agreement that would end all lawsuits “for our time.” Farmers and rural communities were promised that the river would be restored but the water would be recovered. Yet appeasement delivered no security and since the agreement was signed into law, new lawsuits have arisen and none of the lost water has been recovered.

In the meantime, radical environmentalists’ Field Marshall, Congressman George Miller, has taken aim at Westlands Water District. In a letter, Miller claims Westlands is deceiving the public and selling “extra” water.

Westlands took their opportunity to set the record straight. But Westlands also used the opportunity to appease valley Democrats and Senator Feinstein – legislators who have voted in favor of fish over families.

Attacking the radical environmental community’s field commander while paying homage to the region’s drought masters seriously undermines the position of Westlands’ farmers. It also threatens San Joaquin Valley communities that depend on Delta water. This self-destructive behavior is akin to death by a thousand cuts.

The irony is that Westlands has a long history of standing up to radical environmentalists, but their actions this week have put them in the same league as many other valley farm groups who have been apologists for valley democrats and Senator Feinstein for decades.

In Washington DC, it is nearly impossible to tell the difference between the valley Democrat drought masters and Speaker Nancy Pelosi, radical environmentalist Congressman George Miller, and liberal senators Feinstein and Boxer. They all voted for Obamacare, voted for the Wall Street bailout, voted to divert water from families to support a billion dollar salmon fishery, and they all support the union card check bill. Finally, they all voted to keep the pumps off and will never voluntarily turn them back on.

While this grand game of appeasement continues, Westlands should keep in mind that their beloved valley drought master legislators are telling them one thing but doing something completely different in Washington DC.

Will the Westlands Water District be holding their next meeting in Munich?

My Thoughts on the Pledge to America

noreply@blogger.com (Congressman Devin Nunes) — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 11:19:01 PDT

by DEVIN NUNES

Some conservatives may look at the House Republican “Pledge to America” with concern – not over what it contains, but what it does not contain. There are, after all, several big issues that are not tackled, including energy security, fundamental tax and entitlement reforms. But I see this initiative as an important step in a far more ambitious plan to restore American liberty and prosperity.

First, the rubber stamp would be put away and the Obama Administration would be subject to meaningful oversight – something essential to the preservation of our freedoms.

Second, the House of Representatives - governed by a new Republican majority - will serve as the standard bearer for limited government and the strict adherence to America’s Constitutional principles.

And thirdly, Democracy will be restored to the People’s House after many tarnished years under the iron fist of Speaker Pelosi and her allies. Committees will examine and write legislation, not unaccountable special interests in the backrooms of the Speaker’s office. Ideas will be debated again, in place of intimidation and vote buying. Bills will actually be read before they are voted on and the American people will again have their voice heard.

These are good reasons to support the “Pledge to America,” as are the many proposals it contains to slim down and reign in government. However, the pledge should be viewed as the starting point not the ultimate solution to our nation’s enormous challenges.

Click here to download and learn more about the Pledge to America.

Click here to read about my comprehensive energy reforms contained in the Roadmap for Americans Energy Future.

Click here to read about A Roadmap for America’s Future, which fundamentally reforms our nation’s tax, healthcare, entitlement, and retirement security programs.

White House Koch Attack

noreply@blogger.com (Congressman Devin Nunes) — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 11:20:12 PDT

by DEVIN NUNES

Modern leftists, much like their communist forefathers, have long used the power of government to exert control and silence dissent. The erosion of free speech in America has come in a number of ways, not all of which are the result of new laws. Such is the case today.

I recently learned that the White House has launched an attack against a privately owned American company, Koch Industries. This attack may include the unlawful use of Internal Revenue Service documents.

As a Member of the House Committee on Ways and Means, which has jurisdiction over the IRS, I am highly concerned that the White House may be prying into the tax returns of its political enemies. For this reason, I have called on my Chairman, Rep. Sander Levin, to immediately conduct oversight inquires into the actions of the Obama White House. Should Chairman Levin fail to do so, I am hopeful that November will bring into power a majority willing to uncover the truth.

The White House attack against Koch is politically motivated. The White House wants to end the company’s lawful financial support for conservative and libertarian causes – effectively silencing its opponents.

Koch’s financial support goes to organizations like Humane Studies, a non-profit that underwrites libertarian academics, the Bill of Rights Institute, another non-profit that advocates adherence to our nation’s Constitution, and the CATO Institute, America’s leading libertarian think tank.

These Koch funded organizations and others like them represent the views of the company’s private owners – men who support limited government and libertarian causes. Their work stands in sharp contrast to that of George Soros, the billionaire socialist who created Moveon.org. The philanthropy of these two billionaires helps frame the ideological struggle confronting America today.

Koch’s giving has helped organizations that believe in American freedom and the Republic form of government. Soros on the other hand has built an empire of radical liberal politics. The seeds of Soros’ investments have grown to promote European Socialism in America, a renaissance of big government, and the unprecedented centralization of power.

In recent years, Democrats have become increasingly militant in their efforts to shake down corporate America. For the most part, big business has been willing to participate in the Democratic Party’s protection racket in order to prevent Congress and the President from doing something worse.

The examples are endless. The President extorted insurance and pharmaceutical companies as part of his health care reform initiative; Democrats in Congress extorted America’s financial sector under the auspices of financial sector reform; and radical environmentalists and their friends in Congress have transformed big oil into a cash cow to fund global warming hysteria.

In each case companies like Chrysler, Royal Dutch Shell, and General Electric have either directly financed attacks on our nation’s freedom or agreed not to oppose the attacks in order to maintain favor with their rulers.

The White House attack against Koch is an assault on American liberty. It sends a chilling message to conservative philanthropists concerned about the future of our nation and it signals that, as far as the White House is concerned, equal protection under the law only applies to the President’s supporters. The fact that the White House has chosen this path suggests that President Obama is leading a paranoid, insecure, and dictatorial Administration – one that is in desperate need of better Congressional oversight.

GOP Decision Time: A Great Leap Toward Honesty

noreply@blogger.com (Congressman Devin Nunes) — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 11:20:33 PDT

by DEVIN NUNES

A shorter version of this commentary ran in the Washington Examiner on September 3, 2010. It was featured by Big Government on September 9, 2010.

When John Boehner was first elected Republican leader, he said he felt like the dog that caught the car. This is a metaphor for someone who works hard to achieve a major goal, only to be confronted with the age old question “What do we do now?” If Republicans take back the House and Senate, the party will actually be the dog that caught the car.

Victory at the polls means Republicans will inherit an angry electorate that has been voting for change since 2006. The country is at a crossroads. In one direction there is big, centralized government that usurps the rights of states, local communities, and individual Americans. It’s the job of the Republican leaders to outline another direction, but that direction is not yet clear to them. This must change before the next election.

Americans punished Republicans in the 2006 and 2008 elections. Conventional wisdom said the country wanted change. The truth is that Americans saw no real difference between Democrats and Republicans. The Republican brand has gone stale and paved the way for a new era of big government and socialism. As Newsweek boldly proclaimed in early 2009, “We are all socialists now.”

Thankfully, the prospect of this socialist era enduring is slim. The American public has learned what socialistic polices really mean. A budget deficit that was $161 billion when the Democrats took control of Congress in 2007 and four years later projected to be $1.47 trillion; and a national debt held by the public that was $5 trillion and four years later projected to be $9.2 trillion. This and a lot more, including a projected $2.6 trillion cost to implement the Democrats’ healthcare bill, have soured the experience of most Americans with a Socialist Golden Age. As Margaret Thatcher said, “…Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people's money.” We just didn’t know that the White House and the Democratic Congress would run out of other people’s money so soon, or that they could accelerate our financial mess so rapidly.

President Obama will be remembered in history for his sweeping legislative success in bringing about an unprecedented era of big government in an American “Great Leap Forward.” And like China’s Great Leap Forward under Mao during the late 1950s and early 1960s, the result will be economic failure. At the forefront of our financial mess are broken entitlement programs. The President has hastened our financial catastrophe but he is not alone in doing nothing to fix the unfunded entitlement liabilities, which are in excess of $60 trillion for Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. The line of politicians wanting to avoid this problem, or unwilling to understand it, extends back for decades.

The Republican leadership has taken the innovative approach of “listening” to the American public, using the latest technology to give Americans a voice in their government. Americans can go online or use their cell phones to recommend cuts in spending on the Republican Whip’s site “You Cut” or submit their ideas to the Republican Leader’s site “America Speaking Out.” Good ideas are then mentioned on the floor of the House of Representatives or may be included in any future Republican agenda.

But listening will only get you so far. At what point do Republican leaders break the news that the country is racing toward financial catastrophe? The Republican Party is not serving the American people well if its leaders imply that catastrophe can be avoided by texting votes for cuts that even if they were adopted would have little impact on our nation’s growing debt. A freeze in spending is good; eliminating earmarks is great; shutting an entire cabinet agency might even be better. Yet after all that, our country still goes bankrupt because the tough decisions on entitlement and tax reform are being ignored.

Republicans should learn a lesson from the Contract With America. In 1994, Republican candidates ran on a set of promises that had been poll tested and focused grouped. An election was won and there were legislative successes in the 12 years that followed. Yet by 2006 and the end of Republican control of Congress, the GOP had failed to convince the public that they could govern any better than the Democrats. The lesson is clear: Republicans have to define themselves through more than rhetoric and platitudes as the protectors of states’ rights, local community control, and, most importantly, individual freedom from the growing power of the federal government.

As the 2010 elections rapidly approach, the Republican leadership must put forward a credible plan that reforms entitlements, simplifies the tax code, and has a real energy policy. These policy changes would result in a balanced budget, a shrinking trade deficit, repayment of the national debt, and put Americans back to work. History will reward Republicans if we are honest with the American people; but first we must be honest with ourselves.

Devin Nunes, a Republican, represents the 21st congressional district of California. He is the author of Restoring the Republic (WND, 2010).

A GOP Energy Alternative

noreply@blogger.com (Congressman Devin Nunes) — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 11:21:49 PDT

by THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Out of the most tedious congressional debate sometimes comes a little ray of policy sunshine. The GOP got a glimmer this week.

As congressional Democrats plotted how to make their "oil-spill" legislation a political liability for Republicans, and as Republicans flapped over how to avoid that fate, one GOP member excused himself from the circus. California Rep. Devin Nunes instead unveiled his "Energy Roadmap," a companion bill to Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan's plan for tax and spending reform. Mr. Nunes wants to get his party thinking about a modern, principled energy policy. Lord knows the GOP could use the help.

Republicans have spent the past decade staying largely true to their belief in cheap fossil fuels, but the rise of the climate debate and "green energy" flummoxed them. Unwilling to be seen as against "clean" energy, they embraced green subsidies. Some excused it as the political price of continued drilling; others just liked the pork.

Calif. Rep. Devin Nunes's nuclear proposal would do more to reduce carbon emissions than any Democratic plan on the table.

Whatever the reason, it's been a boon for ethanol, solar panels, switch grass and General Electric. The Republicans' 2005 energy bill was an ode to Jimmy Carter, putting the government back in charge of picking energy winners and losers via handouts and loan guarantees. President Bush praised "wood chips." Even as gas prices soared to chants of "drill, baby, drill," Republicans carefully adopted the motto: "All of the above." Heaven forbid anyone think Republicans were not for solar water heaters.

And yet this defensive crouch has not, in fact, earned Republicans more oil drilling or nuclear power. All it has done is distort energy markets and embolden Democrats to ratchet back fossil fuels, crank up subsidies, and go for cap and tax. Republicans dissemble, having long ago ceded the right to talk about free energy markets.

On nearly any policy issue—Social Security, taxes, health care, education—Republicans are at least aware of a savvy conservative reform position. Not so energy policy, where they remain confused.

Purists will advocate getting government out of the regulatory way while axing all subsidies—and that would indeed be bliss. But it doesn't help Republicans with today's political realities. The carbon debate will continue to rage; renewables aren't going away; and many Americans worry about both foreign oil and the environment.

Mr. Nunes' interest is how to answer these concerns in a more free-market way. The Californian's road map is the product of years of work, most recently with Mr. Ryan and a handful of Republicans with energy expertise—Illinois's John Shimkus, Utah's Rob Bishop, and Idaho's Mike Simpson. It's a bill designed to produce energy, not restrict it. It returns government to the role of energy facilitator, not energy boss. It costs nothing and contains no freebies. It instead offers a competitive twist to government support of renewable energy.

The bill is unabashedly focused on allowing America to responsibly access more of its own low-cost resources. It opens up more of the Outer Continental Shelf, and takes another run at opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It restores the leasing for Western oil shale that the Obama administration has squelched.

Rather than throw federal loan guarantees at uncertain nuclear plants, the legislation attacks the true problem: bureaucratic roadblocks. It streamlines a creaky regulatory process, requires the timely up-or-down approval of 200 plants over 30 years, and offers new flexibility for dealing with nuclear waste. Mr. Nunes likes to point out that his nuclear provision alone would do more to reduce carbon emissions than any Democratic proposal in existence. And it would in fact create, ahem, green jobs. Imagine that.

The bill accepts the argument that renewables serve a purpose but can't yet compete against traditional energy. It would divert all the federal resource royalties into a fund. Companies or individuals with proven renewable technology would take part in a reverse auction. They'd bid for government bucks; those that can produce the most megawatts for the least money win. Auction winners forego other federal handouts. And consider this: The more fossil fuel extraction, the more royalties (potentially hundreds of billions of dollars) available to boost alternative energy.

In a better world, renewables would sink or swim. But Mr. Nunes notes that if there is a public will for supporting these technologies, this is at least a "more free-market and transparent way to deploy them immediately." Today, bureaucrats choose unproven technologies on which to bestow taxpayer grants. Blanket tax credits flow to industries—regardless of individual companies' merit. Auction participants, in contrast, would compete, and the market would first have a say in their success. If the GOP is determined to go green, this is megawatts more principled than the status quo.

Mr. Nunes doesn't suggest his bill is the end-all-be-all; his primary goal is to get his party engaged. Watch for the GOP response. The Republican leadership has shown little inclination to adopt bold proposals for the midterms. And the oil spill has spooked it on energy. Yet Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's recent decision to shelve cap-and-tax has shown that even Democrats now acknowledge the public isn't buying their high-cost, government mandate, subsidy approach. If not some new GOP energy principles now, when?