Devin Nunes

Mr. NUNES

Mr. NUNES. Mr. Chairman, we don't need any fancy speeches here today. A sixth-grader from an elementary school in my district--I won't read the whole thing--sent this letter: Not only does this problem affect the farming industry, it also affects the farmers, families, and their livelihood. I am sure you've heard this complaint. But before, as with future generations, it is of great concern to me. Please do what you can to get the water to the farmers once again, then we can use the fertile soil that the people of this valley have been blessed with. This sixth-grader is correct. This Congress should do the right thing. We need Democrats and Republicans to come together today. As the Speaker of the House stated earlier, this is to right a wrong. I urge passage of this bill.

Mr. NUNES. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that the gentleman from California has read the bill, because he complains about the subsidies. In fact, this bill gets rid of the subsidies as this bill returns almost $300 million to the Treasury. So we agree. We want to get rid of the subsidies. We want to cut the deficit. That's what this bill does. I don't quite understand what he was talking about in terms of tearing down barns, but I would say that the gentleman's legislation that was passed with a Senator from New Jersey and a Congressman from California to preempt State law has been very successful at tearing apart farms and families.

Mr. NUNES. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Denham) just made a very important point. Silicon Valley gets their water from Hetch Hetchy. San Francisco gets their water from Hetch Hetchy. What's Hetch Hetchy? Hetch Hetchy was dammed up. It's in Yosemite, and they pipe their water. So if they care about the fish and the fishermen, tear down the dam, send their water out to the delta. But they don't want to do that. Now I have a lot of my respect for my friend from northern California (Mr. Thompson). We've worked together on many issues. But I have to remind the gentleman that the salmon fishermen were bailed out. They were given $230 million in payments. I think there needs to be a GAO study on where this money went to because we don't know where this money went. There's never been any report to show where this money went--$230 million. But it was the Federal Government that told the fishermen not to fish. And I would hope that the gentleman would actually support this legislation because what we have here is the fish that are killing the salmon are the bass--the bass fish do that. So let's let the fishermen go fish. And here's the gruesome picture again. I know you don't like to see it. Let's go get the bass that are eating the smelt so that then the salmon don't have anything to eat. The bass is a nonnative species. So this bill allows fishermen to go back to work. I would hope that the gentleman would support this bill because we need to get the fishermen back to work. I agree. We don't want to spend $230 million after the Federal Government tells the fishermen, no, you can't fish, and then pays them not to fish. That is insanity.

Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, once again, I don't believe the other side has read the bill. This bill provides for the ultimate protections for delta communities--ultimate protections that guarantee their God-given right to their property and to their water. That's what this bill does. So if you vote against this bill, you're voting to continue the attack on farmers all over the State and communities all over the State. So, if delta farmers want to continue to take water out of the delta like they've been doing for 100 years--they have always had their allocation--this bill guarantees that. Now, I've been to the delta numerous times, and I've spoken to the communities there. Their number one concern is that they do not want the peripheral canal to be built. Well, if you vote against this bill, you are voting to ensure that Jerry Brown, the Governor of California who opposes this bill, gets his wish to build the peripheral canal that the delta farmers don't want. So if the gentleman wants the peripheral canal built, vote against the bill. If the gentleman wants to make sure that his farmers are not guaranteed their right for water, vote against the bill. But I find it ironic that the minority is arguing for the delta farmers and the delta communities, but at the very basic level the people who are behind this, the Governor of California, was just here the other day advocating to build the peripheral canal that the gentleman says his constituents don't want. Well, my constituents don't want it either. Neither do the people in the north. None of us wants to build a multibillion dollar project like this. And we don't have to because passage of this bill allows valuable water to be moved across the delta in a more equitable fashion to guarantee waterfowl and fish populations would increase, and guarantees rights to farmers and farmworkers and communities. That's what this bill does. I would hope that folks in this body and the gentleman himself would maybe withdraw his amendment so that we don't have to take a vote on this because I would hate for the gentleman to vote on an amendment that would basically ensure that he would be supporting Jerry Brown and the Democratic administration that want to take his water away from him that he so cherishes. Mr. Chairman, I would just say that we need to slow down. I would hope that the other side would take a look at this bill and read the bill. Once they do, they will figure out that all the stakeholders were together in 1994 when everyone sat down to make this agreement. That's what this goes back to.

Mr. NUNES. Mr. Chairman, this debate is really incredible. There is nothing about veteran cemeteries in this bill. I can understand why the minority would want to talk about veterans, because we love our veterans in this country and we do everything to support them. But it is a stretch to say that a bill dealing with property rights somehow involves veteran cemeteries. Since we're talking about veterans, I will say when we send our veterans overseas, our men and women in the military to protect this country, we have a right to protect people's private property. That's what this bill does. I know my other friends on the other side of the aisle who have continued to make this argument, they suddenly care about State preemption. They didn't care about State preemption in 1986, 1992, when they sat down in 1994, when they did their boondoggle in 2009. They didn't care about State preemption then. Boy, today, when we talk about guaranteeing people their right to their private property, they suddenly are the defenders of the Constitution. This is really stretching it. I know that the gentleman who was the under secretary at the time who made the deal in 1994, that was bragged about by not only the former chairman of the Natural Resources Committee at the time, bragged about the Bay-Delta Accord of 1994, not only the Under Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of the Interior himself and President Bill Clinton. They all supported the '94 agreement. All this talk about comprehensive reform and getting people to the table, we've done that before. What that results in is the illegal taking of people's personal property.

Mr. NUNES. Mr. Chairman, once again, I will say that delta communities are protected in this bill. They're concerned about water quality. This bill allows water to move through the delta. They're concerned about maintaining their ability to divert water. This bill allows them to do that. It ensures their private property rights and their rights to their water. The delta farmers want to make sure that they get conveyance through the delta so they can get their water. This bill does that. And, as Mr. Denham pointed out, the communities on the west side of San Joaquin County, I guess, perhaps they don't matter to the minority because, evidently, by supporting this and opposing this bill, you're basically guaranteeing that the City of Tracy and those districts, those water districts where those jobs are created, are going to be cut off of their water this year. This bill fixes that. And, once again, I will say that if the delta communities are worried about this peripheral canal, this is why the delta communities should be supporting this bill. But we don't hear anything about that. We hear about Jerry Brown, the Governor of California, opposing the bill and the attorney general of California opposing the bill. Why are they opposing the bill? Well, because they were just back in Washington 2 days ago lobbying for the construction of the peripheral canal. Now, perhaps the delta communities want the peripheral canal. Maybe that's a change. I don't know. I haven't been up there in the last few months. But last I heard, the delta communities do not want the peripheral canal to be built. So, Mr. Chairman, I would urge the gentleman to drop his amendment and to vote in favor of this bill.

Mr. NUNES. Mr. Chairman, once again I want to talk about the water exports. You saw this earlier. Here are the water exports, Mr. Chairman, right here at the bottom. The green line represents the inflows to the delta. You can see that most of the water, in fact, 76 percent of the water that enters the delta ends up out in the ocean. Seventy-six percent of the water ends up out in the ocean. What this bill does, this allows the folks in the delta their rights to their water. So if you vote against this bill, you're voting to take those people's water away and their right to their water away. So if the gentleman's concerned about water quality, then he should support the bill, because this bill allows the water to move more freely throughout the delta because it gets rid of the problems that we have throughout the delta and the rigidness that was created when this Congress, in 1992, basically attempted to put farmers out of business and farmworkers in food lines. That's what this debate's about. And I would suggest, if the gentleman--we could have a unanimous consent agreement right now for an amendment, if the chairman of the committee would allow me. The City of San Francisco and Santa Clara and all over the bay area, many of the folks from the other side of the aisle who oppose this bill, why do they oppose it other than they want to construct the peripheral canal? They want to ensure construction of the peripheral canal like their Governor, Jerry Brown, wants to do. But also they don't like the dirty little secret--Yosemite. This was dammed up. Hetch Hetchy was dammed up. Here's the water that sits in Hetch Hetchy today. It was one of John Muir's favorite places on Earth, and this Congress dammed it up. But you don't see--in all this water that's here, this water would go out to the delta. So perhaps we could have a unanimous consent agreement to tear this down today. Let's dump all this water that goes to San Francisco and Silicon Valley, let's take all this water that would go to the delta, let's dump it down there. Let's save the fish. Let's go. Unanimous consent agreement. Will anybody agree to it?

Mr. NUNES. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman admitting that he was the Under Secretary at the time, and he failed to implement the agreement that everyone came together and agreed upon. Now, earlier, we had the gentleman from California, who was the author of the 1992 act, who came down to the floor, berated farmers, berated production agriculture, and admitted that it was his goal to get rid of production agriculture. So why did they, at the time, change from 40-year contracts to 25- year contracts? Folks, I think this is something that the American people will understand. The American people right now from other States may not understand a whole lot about what we're talking about, but they will understand this, and farmers across America will understand this: that when farmers borrow money on their land, many times they have to do it under 30-year agreements with the bank. So I have to ask myself, why in 1992 did they move this from 20 to 25 years?

Mr. NUNES. Why did they move in 1992 to 25 years? Conveniently that made it very hard for farmers to get loans on their land, especially when they were not sure if they were going to have a water supply. That's what this bill tries to fix. That's why we should vote ``no'' on this amendment because I believe our Founding Fathers and previous Members of Congress who came before us knew at the time that a 40-year agreement would be enough for farmers and people trying to borrow money to go and borrow that money so they could put their families to work and provide for their families. So that's why we should vote ``no'' against this agreement, when we had the author down here berating production agriculture. We know what the intent was of 1992, and we've seen the chaos that has been created since 1992, and that's what we fix in this bill.

Mr. NUNES. Mr. Chairman, once again, I want to bring up this issue that the minority continues to ignore. They don't want to talk about this, and I don't understand why. They care about this freshwater. They also care about the environment, but they dammed up Yosemite. They have the water here, and they pipe it to their communities. They completely go around the delta so that none of this water ever makes it to the precious fish that they care about. We have this beautiful environment here, Mr. Chairman, that was destroyed by the Congress; but we don't see any amendments to fix this travesty, do we? It's interesting that the gentlelady from California wants to raise water rates. Do you know who pays the cheapest water rates in California or electricity rates and fees on that? Hetch Hetchy, the power generation at Hetch Hetchy. So perhaps we should have an amendment that would be offered that would make Hetch Hetchy pay today's fees, fees that all of the other folks in California are having to pay. If we want to do that, then everyone would be on a level playing field. But no. Instead, this is an attack, once again, as usual, on farm workers and farmers. I want to remind my colleagues that this bill saves $300 million, $300 million, this bill saves. So if the ratepayers in San Francisco, in Santa Clara, in Silicon Valley, and all over the Bay Area want to have their precious water, well, they ought to pay the same fees, too. I would suggest, and I would hope, that we come back at some other time and deal with the issue and with the unfairness of people who don't have any water in San Francisco who are so hell-bent on taking people's water away.

Mr. NUNES. Mr. Chairman, I will be very quick. The gentlelady from California is the biggest offender of the ultimate subsidy of all. Those are those mystery little Title XVI grants from the Bureau of Reclamation. They don't even charge interest. They just give those away. That's an outrageous subsidy that goes to communities in southern California and in the bay area of $1,500 an acre-foot. So, I guess we could offer an amendment to strip out all Title XVI money. I'd be willing to do that, too. Let's strip out all the Title XVI money, all the subsidies that go to Los Angeles, Hollywood, and San Francisco. Let's strip out the Title XVI money. Is the gentlelady willing to strip out Title XVI money?

Mr. NUNES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to remind my colleagues of Dr. Peter Gleick--we haven't heard from him today--Dr. Peter Gleick, the man who comes to testify in Congress before the committee to tell us why it's so important that we take water away from farmers and families. Why have we not heard about Dr. Peter Gleick today? Because 2 weeks ago, Dr. Peter Gleick admitted to impersonating someone else on the Internet, stole information and then falsified the information and sent it out all over the planet. But Dr. Peter Gleick got caught. Dr. Peter Gleick got caught. The main man that they support got caught.

Mr. NUNES

Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Richard L. Cotta, a pillar of the California dairy industry, on the occasion of his retirement. Mr. Cotta has spent virtually his entire career in all aspects of the dairy business; from dairy farming to dairy genetics and from dairy processing to dairy politics. Mr. Cotta is a graduate, with honors, from California State Polytechnic University, San Luis Obispo, with a degree in dairy husbandry. From 1980 to 1984 he was the CEO of United Dairymen of California, a producer trade organization, until it merged to form Western United Dairymen. From 1984 to 1993, Mr. Cotta served as the CEO of Western United Dairymen, the largest producer trade association in California. Since 2007, Mr. Cotta has held the title of President and CEO of California Dairies, Inc. (CDI). His career at CDI began in 1993 when he started as General Manager at San Joaquin Valley Dairymen, a dairy processing and marketing cooperative. In 1999, San Joaquin Valley Dairymen merged with Danish Creamery and California Milk Producers to form CDI. At this time, Mr. Cotta was named Senior Vice President of Producer Affairs and Government Relations, and held this position until he was named CEO in 2007. Under his leadership, CDI profits have reached record levels. Today, CDI is California's largest dairy provider and the 2nd largest in the United States. Previously, Mr. Cotta worked as a sire analyst for American Breeders Service, a classifier for the Holstein Association of America and a principal in Genetics, Inc. For several years he was a dairy consultant with many successful dairies on feeding, breeding and management systems. Mr. Cotta has testified before the U.S. Congress and the California Legislature on behalf of the dairy industry. At the request of the Secretary of Agriculture, he has participated in world trade missions to open foreign markets to U.S. dairy products. Mr. Cotta currently owns and operates Cotta Farms and is a partner in Terra Bella Farms, both almond farming operations. He sits on the following boards: U.C. Davis Deans Advisory Council; California State University Chancellors Ag Advisory Council; Sacred Heart School Foundation; and the Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy. He is also on the Globalization Operating Committee for the U.S. Dairy Export Council. Please join me in congratulating Mr. Richard L. Cotta on his retirement from California Dairies, Inc.

Mr. NUNES

Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend my congratulations to World Wide Sires as they celebrate their 40th anniversary. World Wide Sires was established in 1971 in Hanford, California, a small town in the San Joaquin Valley. From his home farm, founder Bill Clark recognized the benefits of genetic potential and its role in producing the most efficient and highest quality livestock. Today, World Wide Sires is the world's leading cattle genetics marketing organization with active markets in over 70 countries. In 2001, World Wide Sires Inc. was purchased by Accelerated Genetics and Select Sires and became World Wide Sires Ltd. Still operating as a stand-alone company, World Wide Sires has continued to use the San Joaquin Valley as the hub for their growing international sales, maintaining headquarters in Visalia, California. During its 40 years, World Wide Sires has sold products in 108 countries, all from only a few miles away from founder Bill Clark's original home farm. A leading exporter of US bovine genetic material, World Wide Sires remains committed to providing dairy and beef producers throughout the world with the highest quality genetics and services available. I applaud World Wide Sires for their hard work and dedication to the agricultural community, and I congratulate them on their 40th anniversary.

Mr. NUNES

Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to pay tribute to Sean Ray Ferguson, who at the age of 29 passed away on November 12, 2011, in Baghdad, Iraq. Sean was born on July 7, 1982, in San Diego, California to Darryl and Raelynn Ferguson. He was a 2001 graduate of Mt. Whitney High School in Visalia. During Sean's time at Mt. Whitney High, he was a standout player on the football team. He was playing wide receiver his senior year when Mt. Whitney High won the ``Cowhide'' game against Redwood High for the first time in 10 years. Two months after graduating high school, Sean enlisted in the United States Army, honorably serving our country for eight years, and retiring at the rank of Staff Sergeant due to combat wounds. In addition to two Purple Hearts, one of which was presented to Sean directly by former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, he also received many awards and commendations for his service in Iraq with unit ``Deuce Four.'' After retirement, Sean began working for Triple Canopy, a private contracting company, working as a personal security agent for members of the U.S. State Department. His job required him to return to Iraq, where he was working at the time of his death. Sean's family recalls his great love for America and freedom. He was fully engaged in our mission of bringing freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people. Sean was proud to be in Mosul, Iraq, when the first elections were held after the fall of Saddam Hussein. His favorite quote was ``Freedom isn't free,'' and he had a deep understanding of the hard and difficult work it takes to be free. Sean is survived by his parents; his sister, Aimee Sorensen; and his brother, Matthew Ferguson. He is also survived by seven nephews, one niece, his grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins. He was a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. At this time of great sorrow, I hope that Sean's family can take comfort in knowing that we will forever be indebted to his service to our country.

Mr. NUNES

Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend my congratulations to Challenge Dairy Products as they celebrate their 100th anniversary. Challenge first opened with 4 employees, a wagon and a rented horse that traveled from the San Joaquin Valley to Los Angeles. Today, Challenge Dairy Products has gown into a cooperative association representing 450 California family-owned dairies that markets and distributes dairy products globally. Challenge has become the largest butter brand in the West and is the leading dairy foodservice provider in California with eight distribution centers spanning from Lodi to San Diego. Challenge's successes are evidence of the many dedicated California dairy farmers and employees who have ensured the quality of all dairy products they produce. From the very beginning J.P. Murphy, the first President of then- named Challenge Cream and Butter Association, recognized the importance of quality when he built the Challenge brand's reputation. With skilled marketing, word spread about the quality of Challenge Cream and Butter until they were the best known brand in the West. In an ongoing effort to improve butter quality, Challenge's engineers developed novel methods for butter processing and shipment, effectively replacing wooden churns and containers with aluminum. Today, Challenge Dairy Products is a wholly owned subsidiary of California Dairies, Inc., CDI, and markets nearly half of CDI's butter supply. As California's largest dairy provider, CDI has six manufacturing facilities that are located throughout the central valley and directly employs over 740 people. The 450 dairy farmer members produce 17 billion pounds of milk annually, allowing CDI to market high quality dairy products in all 50 states and 52 foreign countries. Challenge has provided generations of families with quality dairy products and has been instrumental in making California the top dairy state in the Nation. I applaud Challenge Dairy Products, their dairy farmers and employees for their hard work and dedication, and I congratulate them on their 100th anniversary.

Mr. NUNES

Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the long and distinguished career of Howard Berger, Superintendent of the Tulare Joint Union High School District, who is retiring at the end of this school year. Howard spent his entire career teaching and guiding high schools in Tulare. His awards and accomplishments are so numerous that there is not enough time today to list them. What I can say is that for the people of Tulare there is no need for a list. Anyone who knows Howard also knows that he is a Tulare institution. After graduating from California State University, Hayward in 1968, Howard began his teaching career in Tulare County. Howard admits that he only intended to spend a year at Tulare Union High School teaching Social Studies. Fortunately for students and parents that school year stretched to 1983. Howard has said that what kept him in Tulare was the great community spirit and commitment to education of its residents. During 1972-1973, Howard also taught Social Studies and English at Cherry Avenue Middle School. In 1975, Howard began his distinguished career as an academic administrator, becoming Chair of the Social Studies Department at Tulare Union High School. Further success followed like clockwork. In 1986, Howard was named Assistant Principal at Tulare Western High School and in 1989 he was selected Principal at Tulare Union High School. In 2006, Howard had the honor of being named Superintendent of the Tulare Joint Union High School District. Under his leadership, Tulare opened a third high school, Mission Oak, a milestone in Tulare history. Mission Oak High School will see its first graduating class this year. During his time as Principal and Superintendent, there were numerous accomplishments, honors and awards reflecting Howard's leadership of Tulare high schools. Recognition came from the Western Association of Schools and Colleges, the State of California, the federal government, and national education associations, including a Bill & Melinda Gates grant to participate in a national educational study. Howard's career as Principal and Superintendent will be remembered as an important chapter in Tulare County history. What should also be remembered was that Howard was first and foremost a teacher. As he has said, ``I think in my whole career the experience I've enjoyed the most was teaching. You see immediately the impact you've had.'' For 43 years, the citizens of Tulare have had the privilege of Howard teaching and guiding their students. Forty-three years is a long time. In Howard's office there is also a 43-year-old Fisher 150 record player that he bought with his first paycheck from the school district. Like the record player, many changes have occurred in Tulare, the State of California, and the nation. Howard successfully steered Tulare high schools through them all. It is hard to imagine Tulare schools without Howard. As he enjoys his retirement, I hope Howard will also have time to reflect on his legacy and know that he had a lasting impact on the lives of thousands of high school students and their families.

Mr. NUNES

Mr. NUNES. I would like to say thank you to Chairman Rogers and to Ranking Member Ruppersberger for really taking the Intelligence Committee and establishing its relevance back in the House. I know we've had some disagreements in the past, but Chairman Rogers, along with a lot of new members on the committee, have been working closely with the Democrats in a bipartisan way to, I believe, make a real difference in Congress' role in the intelligence community. I want to commend both of them for their honest and hard work. It's never easy because, as I'm learning now since being on the committee, it takes a lot of hours, and it's a lot of hours on behalf of the members that they have to commit to this committee; so having a chairman and a ranking member to really lead us in that effort makes a big difference. Mr. Chairman, let me speak to the issue at hand, which is that it is very concerning that Congress has not completed an authorization bill in 6 years even though the terrorist threat has not lessened since September 11, 2001. This has limited an important oversight responsibility of the Congress. The world is too dangerous for Congress not to be more engaged in overseeing 16 intelligence agencies. We simply cannot maintain the status quo of the 111th Congress and ignore laws that require congressional oversight and the authorization of intelligence operations by the House Intelligence Committee. Congress must meet its responsibilities and again begin to pass annual intelligence authorization bills, which are vital to ensuring, among other things, that the men and women who really risk their lives to be part of this intelligence community are properly funded to carry out their critical mission of defending our country, such as the mission we just saw a couple of weeks ago, that of the killing of Osama bin Laden.

Mr. NUNES. Congress can no longer avoid its responsibilities when our counterintelligence operations provide critical support to our combat units in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and in other important places across the world or when our intelligence agencies require new, cutting-edge technology or during a time of unprecedented unrest in the Middle East, Southeast Asia or in other parts of Central and South America. This does not mention the ever-growing threat that we face in the cyber community, with cyberspace, which is an area that this committee, I believe, will have to spend some significant time on.

Mr. NUNES. It also doesn't mention the time that we will have to spend on some foreign countries that are quickly gaining access to minerals that are very hard to come by. So many foreign nations are investing a lot of time, energy and effort into locating not only these minerals, oil, and natural gas all over the world, but they're coming together and working outside the interests of the United States. We have to have intelligence in these areas. This isn't your typical authorization bill, but it funds 17 intelligence agencies which are critical to the defense of our country. Each agency has a unique perspective on the world, and Congress should be bipartisan in its partnering in these missions throughout the authorization and oversight processes. I look forward to voting ``yes'' on the 11th bill and to working in a bipartisan way on the 12th bill.

Mr. NUNES

Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the life and work of Darlene Jensen, who passed away on April 13, 2011. Darlene was a legendary Tulare community leader. In fact, she was named Tulare Woman of the Year in 1993. For many people, Darlene was Tulare Woman of the Year, every year. Darlene lived in Tulare her entire life. She was born on January 20, 1948, and attended Tulare Western High School and the College of the Sequoias before beginning a career in banking. She started at Security Pacific National Bank and worked for almost 20 years at the downtown Tulare branch of Wells Fargo, becoming a ``Star Manager.'' Many people will remember Darlene as the manager of Wells Fargo. But many more will remember her lasting contribution to the community of Tulare. At the time of her death, Darlene was president of the Tulare Improvement Board and vice-president of the Board of Utilities. For her public service, she was named Legislative Woman of the Year in 2001. She was also active in the St. Aloysius Catholic Church, Our Lady of Fatima Celebration, and past-president of the Lions Club. This only begins to tell part of the story of Darlene's commitment to the people of Tulare. Her energy was prodigious. There were few groups, clubs, or events in Tulare in which Darlene was not in some way involved. They all benefited from what has been called the ``Darlene touch.'' For example, one of her favorite events was the downtown Tulare Christmas Tree Lighting, where she and her mother, Agnes, would cook upwards of 5,000 cookies to give away. For 63 years Darlene Jensen represented the best of Tulare. Everyone she knew was affected by her commitment to public service and passion for Tulare. She leaves behind a legacy that will be hard to equal. The people of Tulare will miss Darlene for years to come.

Mr. NUNES

Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of myself and my colleagues the Majority Whip (Mr. McCarthy) and the Gentleman from California (Mr. Denham), to extend my congratulations to Nisei Farmers League as they celebrate their 40th anniversary on April 16, 2011. Farming in the San Joaquin Valley witnessed dramatic changes in the 1960s and 1970s. A small group of Japanese-American growers met near Fresno to discuss the need to unify growers and establish a robust network to protect their rights and property. As more growers joined the group, the Nisei Farmers League was established, taking its name ``Nisei'' from the term for second-generation Japanese-Americans. Today, the Nisei Farmers League works to keep its members informed on important issues and is a strong voice for valley growers. Together with my colleagues, I recognize the commitment the Nisei Farmers League has provided to its members for 40 years.

Mr. NUNES

Mr. NUNES. Mr. Chairman, this budget stops in its tracks the efforts of Democrat leaders to trap the American people on a high-speed train trip with the false promise of green jobs. This is a trip, a one-way ticket to bankruptcy. However, if you support the Ryan budget, you will help this government recover from a debilitating and life-threatening illness that started when our leaders threw out the American way of life in favor of a left-wing agenda. Let's be clear. We have two choices: we can look forward and pave a path to economic prosperity, or we can become the world's most heavily taxed Nation in a dangerous, dangerous zone of bankruptcy. Mr. Chairman, throughout modern history, socialists have been searching for the last exit to Utopia, of Big Government collectivism. Unfortunately, for the socialist utopians in this town that support President Obama's spending plan, this last exit to Utopia will remain a mystery, a relic of 1960s radicals.

Mr. NUNES

Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, as Congress closely scrutinizes federal programs to reduce our massive federal debt and deficit, we must take a hard look at troubled, taxpayer-financed programs that play a role in destroying American jobs. The February 25, 2011 edition of The Washington Examiner contained a column by Mr. Ron Arnold that discusses the legislative history and current activities of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation--a non-profit organization authorized by Congress in 1984 pursuant to Public Law 98-244. Mr. Arnold's column illustrates how Congress originally authorized an average of $100,000 per year in federal taxpayer money to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. Yet, more than a quarter century later, the organization receives $53 million annually in federal government funds according to its own records. Some of this money funds zealous and litigious environmental groups whose actions threaten the livelihoods of America's hard-working farmers and ranchers. At a time when American agriculture is threatened by onerous regulation, bureaucratic intimidation, unfair taxation, and high energy costs, our farmers cannot afford to defend themselves from advocacy groups funded by their hard-earned tax dollars. I urge my colleagues to read Mr. Arnold's column on the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and to question whether the federal government should continue supporting it and other non-profit groups that use taxpayer money to put people out of work. [From the Washington Examiner, Feb. 25, 2011] Congress Should Stop Funding Big Green Lawsuits Against the Government (By Ron Arnold) America's taxpayers need to know about a thorny federal program lurking in the Obama budget: the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. It began decades ago as a millionaire's hobby horse and grew into a Frankenstein monster that today feeds millions of taxpayer dollars to green groups that sue the federal government--and thus sue the taxpayer. I began researching NFWF in a 1995 report on Big Green's federally funded trial lawyers, ``Feeding at the Trough'' (www.undueinfluence.com/feeding-at-the-trough.pdf). NFWF's origins are bizarre: Congress created it as a nonprofit corporation in 1984, specifying that it ``is not an agency or establishment of the United States Government.'' President Reagan denounced that double talk when he reluctantly signed the bill, writing, ``Entities which are neither clearly governmental nor clearly private should not be created.'' The intent for NFWF was to develop private sector support for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, a government agency. This perverse purpose allows a well-connected private elite-- originally including timber heiress Nancy Weyerhaeuser, oil billionaire Caroline Getty, and now hedge fund billionaire Paul Tudor Jones--to carve out government funds, solicit limitless private funds, and funnel the cash to whom they please, including $25,000 to Nancy Weyerhaeuser's son Rick for an anti-logging project he ran in Montana--and $23,500 to a Planned Parenthood-type group in Rajasthan, India, for population control near Ranthambhore National Park. As it grew, NFWF created one horror story after another. It gave $89,748 to the Grand Canyon Trust, which filed suit and shut down the coal-fired Mojave Power Plant in Laughlin, Nev., and cost 200 Navajo miners their high-paying jobs at the Black Mesa coal mine that supplied the plant. NFWF gave nearly $442,000 to the National Wildlife Federation and in return got a lawsuit to divert water from generating electricity in Pacific-Northwest power dams--and spill it for migrating salmon. The suit now threatens to remove four vital hydroelectric dams on the Snake River. Another NFWF recipient, American Rivers ($296,700), is also a party to the suit, which is still in court. The list goes on and on, lawsuits against fisheries, agriculture, energy, construction, manufacturing, the whole economy. NFWF claims that grantee lawsuits do not use federal money. After examining the Internal Revenue Service Form 990 reports of major litigious NFWF recipients, I found no separate segregated accounts for lawsuits--you can't tell federal money from private--making NFWF's claims appear disingenuous at best. NFWF's original $100,000 ``one-time seed money'' appropriation has bloated to $53 million in 2009, exactly what Reagan feared when he famously muttered, ``The definition of immortality is a government program.'' Even though NFWF's wealthy directors should be ideal fundraisers, two-thirds of its income is routinely taxpayer money, and now the Obama administration wants to give it more millions of federal dollars that we don't have. House appropriators tried to cut NFWF's taxpayer umbilical in 1996. Immediately, a Byzantine cabal of Big Green leaders and hired lobbyists materialized, somehow convincing the appropriators to lay off. Reagan should have added, ``Environmental funding is forever.'' Last week, a gutsy congressman tried again. Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., chairman of the House Natural Resource Committee's Power and Water Subcommittee, introduced an amendment to the House's $1.2 trillion continuing resolution bill to permanently defund NFWF. Once again, Big Green sent out its minions, and McClintock's amendment failed on a voice vote. That shouldn't be the end of it. We need congressional hearings to stop feeding taxpayer money into NFWF's funnel. And we need elected officials with the fortitude to instruct the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation's insatiable billionaires to stop feeding at the trough.

Mr. NUNES

Mr. NUNES. Mr. Chair, after four years of complete neglect by the Democratic majority, the San Joaquin Valley of California is in utter shambles. The previous Congress inexplicably and utterly failed to comprehend that shutting off the water supply to an agricultural economy would create economic devastation. As a result, unemployment rates rose to 20% and are as high as 40% in some parts of the Valley. For the past several years, I have fought to restore the water flow and bring back the lost jobs. Every attempt I made to offer legislation was rebuffed by the Democrat majority. Instead, they chose poverty over prosperity and environmental activists over farm workers. The message sent to families in the San Joaquin Valley was that Congress doesn't care that hungry people stand for hours in food lines. It was more important to nourish a fish than nourish a child. In a final insult to the people of the San Joaquin Valley, carrots from China were among the food products provided in those lines. Those dark days are coming to an end. A new dawn has come in the House of Representatives--one that will bring jobs and water back to the parched San Joaquin Valley. The bill before us today is the first step in that direction. Over the last three years, the San Joaquin Valley has seen water supply cuts imposed and justified by draconian biological opinions on the delta smelt and salmon developed by the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS). The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California has held that these opinions are unlawful and illogical; the National Academy of Sciences has said those opinions are not supported by science. With respect to the delta smelt biological opinion issued by the FWS on December 15, 2008, it has been remanded to the agency for preparation of a new biological opinion. The Court's December 14, 2010 decision identified an overarching legal flaw in the ``reasonable and prudent alternative actions'' proposed by FWS. Specifically, the Court found that the FWS failed to comply with its own regulations that govern the development and evaluation of reasonable and prudent alternatives. The Court held that ``the RPA Actions manifestly interdict the water supply for domestic human consumption and agricultural use for over twenty million people who depend on the Projects for their water supply,'' and commented that, `` `Trust us' is not acceptable. FWS has shown no inclination to fully and honestly address water supply needs beyond the species, despite the fact that its own regulation requires such consideration.'' The language that was included in Section 1475 of the bill (H.R. 1) before the House today was specifically addressed by the Court. The Court found that the delta smelt reasonable and prudent alternative Actions 1, 2 and 3 are scientifically flawed because of FWS's use of raw salvage numbers without accounting for changes in population abundance across years, was ``scientifically inappropriate.'' The Court further found that ``the PTM study does not justify the imposition of -5,000 cfs as an upper limit in Actions 1, 2, or 3,'' and directed FWS ``to perform an accurate scientific analysis and justify its ultimate decision regarding the imposition of a water flow ceiling.'' Additionally, the Court found that FWS's finding that project pumping reduces delta smelt prey, despite serious criticism of the underlying analysis by FWS's own peer review panel ``suggests another unlawful, results-driven choice, ignoring best available science.'' The Court said that FWS's attempt to blame the Central Valley Project and State Water Project for essentially all other stressors on the delta smelt population ``has not been justified, nor is it logical or explained by any science.'' The Court also said the entire modeling method employed by FWS in the delta smelt biological opinion was flawed, arbitrary and capricious, and ignored the best available science, all of which indicated that ``a bias was present.'' The Court concluded that because ``the impacts of regulating Project Operations are so consequential, such unsupported attributions (a result in search of a rationale) are unconscionable.'' With respect to the salmon biological opinion issued by the NMFS, on June 4, 2009, the Court granted a preliminary injunction against implementation of reasonable and prudent alternative Actions IV.2.1 and IV.2.3--both of which are addressed in Section 1475 of H.R. 1. In its May 18, 2010 findings, the Court declared ``there is little to no justification in the record for the exact flow ratios chosen for RPA Action IV.2.1.'' It explained that ``the record does not support a finding that the specific Vernalis flow to export ratios imposed by Action IV.2.1. . . . are necessary to avoid jeopardy and/or adverse modification to any of the Listed Species.'' In addressing Action IV.2.3, the Court found ``NMFS did not address relative population impacts in developing or explaining RPA Action IV.2.3.'' The Court ruled that ``salvage data was not scaled for population size, which any prudent and competent fish biologist and statistician would have done, making NMFS' reliance on the salvage data scientifically erroneous.'' Also, the Court found that ``[t]here are serious questions whether there is support in the record for the general proposition that exports reduce survival of salmonids in the interior Delta.'' Last year, the National Academy of Science (NAS) issued a report on both of these biological opinions, including the reasonable and prudent alternatives imposed by each; the report was titled a ``Scientific Assessment of Alternatives for Reducing Water Management Effects on Threatened and Endangered Fishes in California's Bay Delta.'' In particular, regarding the delta smelt biological opinion, the NAS found that ``there is substantial uncertainty regarding the amount of flow that should trigger a reduction in exports.'' It also found ``the historical distribution of smelt on which the relationship with OMR flows was established no longer exists. Delta smelt are now sparsely distributed in the central and southern delta . . . and pump salvage has been extremely low, less than four percent of the 50-year average index.'' Regarding Action IV.2.3 in the salmon biological opinion, the report concluded that ``the threshold levels needed to protect fish is not definitively established.'' The report counseled that ``[u]ncertainty in the effect of the flow triggers needs to be reduced, and more flexible triggers that might require less water should be evaluated.'' The report also found that ``there is little direct evidence to support the position that this action alone will benefit the San Joaquin salmon'' absent increased San Joaquin River flows. In reference to Action IV.2.1, the report found that while flows may help out migration, reducing the ``effectiveness of reducing exports to improve steelhead smolt survival is less certain,'' and that there is a ``weak influence of exports in all survival relationships.'' As a final criticism of the reasonable and prudent alternatives in the two biological opinions, the report decried the lack of a ``quantitative analytical framework that ties them together within species, between smelt and salmonid species, and across the watershed. This type of systematic, formalized analysis is necessary to provide an objective determination of the net effect of the actions on the listed species and on water users.'' The report found the lack of any such analysis to be ``a serious deficiency.'' As the NAS report observed, ``[t]his issue has been raised repeatedly in peer reviews, but still has not been incorporated in the NMFS and FWS analyses.'' Despite what the opponents of turning on the pumps say, Section 1475 of H.R. 1 will not prevent the Bureau of Reclamation from complying with the Endangered Species Act in carrying out its vital function to deliver water supplies. Instead, Section 1475 is intended to enable the Central Valley Project to operate unencumbered by the proposed agency alternatives that the Court has already found do not comply with law and therefore should not be enforced. Furthermore, the bill will ban federal funding for the restoration of the San Joaquin River during the 2011 fiscal year. This is the first step in 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. Through the replacement of the existing restoration plan, we will be able 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. I call on my colleagues to support this bill and these vital provisions which will ensure that farmers in the San Joaquin Valley have water to irrigate their fields, grow crops that feed this nation, and put thousands of people back to work.