Devin Nunes

Mr. NUNES

Mr. NUNES. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown- Waite).

Mr. NUNES. Yes, of course.

Mr. NUNES. Reclaiming my time, actually, Mr. Blumenauer, my good friend, spoke about the jobs. Earlier, I had heard another gentleman on the other side of the aisle speak about 1 million jobs. I'm just trying to figure out the math. This is about a $13 billion to $15 billion bill to create 1 million or hundreds of thousands of jobs. Last year we spent $1 trillion to create 3.7 million jobs, and we lost 3 million jobs.

Mr. NUNES. Madam Speaker, I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. NUNES. Yes, I would like to yield to the gentleman.

Mr. NUNES. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. I just want to clarify, I heard the other side of the aisle say that this bill was going to create 1 million jobs. We are going to spend $13 billion to create 1 million jobs. The $1 trillion stimulus bill last year was promised to create 3.7 million jobs. At some point, I would like to--

Mr. NUNES. Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson).

Mr. NUNES. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California, my good friend (Mr. Lewis). (Mr. LEWIS of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. NUNES. Madam Speaker, if at first you don't succeed, try, try again. That seems to be the Democrats' creed and motto. There wouldn't be any need for today's bill if the failed trillion- dollar stimulus package last year actually worked. A year ago the Democrats promised the American people their so-called stimulus would keep unemployment at 8 percent, but a year later we are near 10 percent. Put simply, you cannot create jobs by dumping a trillion dollars into Federal agencies. The administration claims that $1.5 billion in stimulus moneys saved or created 1,664 jobs in California's San Joaquin Valley where I live. Even if one charitably assumes the accuracy of these numbers, the Federal Government has spent a whopping $900,000 to save or create one job in the San Joaquin Valley. Despite spending $900,000 per job, there are still communities in the valley that suffer from 20 to 40 percent unemployment. In fact, in the wake of the stimulus, we saw 3 million additional Americans lose their jobs rather than the 3.7 million jobs that are now being promised by the Obama administration. Sadly, a record 16 million Americans are now unemployed because the stimulus promises were empty and unaffordable. Is it any wonder why the American people continue to ask, Where are the jobs? It appears that the stimulus was not very stimulating outside of Washington. So here we are back again with yet another multibillion- dollar plan slapped together by the Democrats that will probably, once again, fail. Madam Speaker, the Soviet Union experience, sadly, taught us that just because you're going to grow 1 billion bushels of potatoes does not mean that there will be potatoes on the shelves. Similarly, just because the Democrats have chosen to message this as a ``jobs'' bill does not mean that it will actually create a job. The centerpiece of the Democrats' new bill is a payroll tax exemption, a hiring credit for employers to bring on new workers. While I give the Democrats credit for acknowledging that tax cuts are preferable to spending increases, the sad reality is that this is a political charade and it won't work. How do we know? Because the same idea didn't work when Jimmy Carter tried it in the late 1970s. Numerous studies by noted economists from all across the political spectrum have confirmed that these temporary hiring incentives will have little, if any, positive effect on jobs. It is beyond ridiculous to claim that you can have a meaningful impact upon a $14 trillion economy by spending $13 billion on gimmick tax cuts. Let's think about it: If you're an employer, are you really going to hire someone for a permanent position because you get a modest, temporary tax incentive? We could have improved this bill had the Ways and Means Committee actually held a hearing and a markup, but once again we see significant tax legislation taken directly to the floor without a committee hearing, without a committee markup, and without an opportunity to even offer amendments. I understand that there was a change in the chairmanship on the Ways and Means Committee yesterday, but, in fact, this bill on the floor today proves that it's a political sham. It is far from serious to enact sound policy to improve our economy when you can't even decide who the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee is going to be. You don't have to read Adam Smith to know that markets cannot thrive with uncertainty. What employers really need from Washington is the assurance that the Democrats' massive Big Government tax-and-spend agenda isn't going to drive them out of business. Employers face uncertainty about the Democrats' massive takeover of the health care system, about the new $1 trillion cap-and-trade energy tax. They face uncertainty with environmental regulations like those that have driven 84 saw mills from California since 1989, and they face uncertainty about the largest tax increase in American history that will be enacted this year. Madam Speaker, employers don't need more Federal spending to create good private sector jobs; they already know how to create good jobs if Washington would just get out of the way. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NUNES. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. NUNES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. NUNES

Mr. NUNES. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the life and public service of Mr. Robert F. Bowman, a life-long farmer and agricultural leader, well known throughout the San Joaquin Valley, California and the nation. Robert served in the U.S. Army as a second lieutenant, stationed in Okinawa, Japan during WWII. He later graduated from California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo in 1950 with a B.S. in Animal Sciences. From very meager beginnings, at age 15, Robert and his parents formed a farming partnership that would grow from Kern to Tulare County. With a legacy that began in the depths of the Great Depression, Robert ran a successful farming operation for nearly 70 years. While Robert's impact on the agricultural industry is immeasurable, perhaps his greatest contribution was to the student-leadership organization, Future Farmers of America, FFA, where he was elected as the first national president from California in 1941. His dedication to vocational agriculture was exemplified by his continual support of the organization through his help in establishing the first California FFA center in 2005 in Galt, California. First and foremost, Robert was a husband and father; patriarch to a family devoted to serving the agricultural industry. He believed in family and education and was known to tell people; ``that his six girls were his greatest investments''. Today, Robert's wife Gloria Bowman, his six daughters, sixteen grandchildren, and ten great grandchildren, continue to live out his legacy. Robert Bowman was someone whom I knew personally. I valued his judgment and guidance. At heart, he was always a farmer, with an undeniable belief in the agricultural industry, inspiring all those who knew him. Robert's impact will not end today. His life's values, devotion to the agricultural industry, and commitment to education will live on through his family, friends, and community.

Mr. NUNES

Mr. NUNES. Madam Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the Tule River Indians, who I am privileged and proud to represent. The Tules have asked me to share a brief summary of their history, which was prepared by Gelya Frank, Ph.D., with my colleagues and the American people. As someone who is proud of his own heritage and understands its importance, I can well appreciate the pride the Tule River Indians have in their culture and their desire to make it known and am pleased to extend this courtesy to them. The Tule River Reservation was established in 1856 and farming operations were immediately started with Indians working the land. Initially known as the Tule River Indian Farm, the reservation was set up and administered as part of the Tejon Reservation, the first reservation in California. An Act of Congress of March 3, 1853 authorized the creation of five reservations in California, but they were not all fully established at once. As in the case of Tule River, pieces of agricultural land were located and added piecemeal because of the pressing need to locate Indians in their homelands. This was especially a problem in Tulare County, in the southern part of California's Great Central Valley, or San Joaquin Valley, where a large and stable Indian population remained relatively untouched by the Gold Rush beginning in 1848. The establishment of the reservations in California followed a failed process of treaty-making, with the Senate abruptly refusing in 1852 to ratify any of the 18 treaties that it had authorized three commissioners to negotiate with the California tribes the previous year. In fact, the Senate voted to seal all records of its deliberations related to rejection of the treaties for 50 years. According to the unratified Treaty of Paint Creek, of June 3, 1851, a large tract of land in the Tule River region was reserved as a permanent homeland for the local tribes, including the Koyeti and Yowlumne. In 1856, stepping in to conclude a war between settlers and the Tule River Indians, the government established the Tule River Reservation on an existing traditional village site of the Koyeti Tribe. In 1863, the government closed the Tejon Reservation because of crop failures and the loss of its title to the land to a private party. It relocated the Tejon Indians to the Tule River Reservation, increasing the population at the Tule River Reservation to about 800 Indians. The goal of federal Indian policy in California was to establish reservations as permanent homelands for local tribes where the Indians could support themselves by farming. The reservations were intended to provide land suitable for agriculture and plenty of water for year-round irrigation, as well as access to traditional hunting territories and timber in the mountains. This goal was initially well met with the establishment of the Tule River Reservation but then upended when an employee of the Tejon Reservation, Thomas P. Madden, gained title to 1,280 acres of the land. Thomas Madden applied for the 1,280 acres in 1857 under a California State program permitting individuals to withdraw public lands for the purpose of locating schools upon them. Madden's activities were officially investigated and documented by the U.S. Treasury Department in 1858 and again by Congress in 1865, but the government did nothing to halt his acquisition of the land or to assert its trust status on behalf of the Tule River Indians. In 1860, when Madden perfected his title, the government was obliged to begin paying an exorbitant rental in order to continue the Tule River Indians' use of the reservation. Although government agents and inspectors recommended purchasing the 1,280 acre ``Madden Farm,'' the government declined to secure the Indians' homeland but continued the rental for sixteen years. The reservation included at least 800 more acres of government land that were fenced and cultivated. An Executive Order of January 9, 1873 established a new reservation in a remote location, far from the settlers who were taking up lands in region. The new Executive Order reservation, with an estimated 48,000 acres, was much larger than the old. But it was located in a steep rocky canyon on land not nearly as well suited to agricultural development of that era. The government agent and the Indians expressed their dissatisfaction with it and resisted relocating. For many years, the ``Madden Farm'' had been agriculturally the most reliable and productive reservation in California. A full generation of Tule River Indians was born on that site. They had made major improvements including tilling the soil, constructing government buildings and houses, digging a 5- mile-long ditch, clearing a 25-mile-long road into the timber and fencing some 2,000 acres. Most of the Indians refused to leave the old reservation. In 1876, the last families were finally forced by soldiers to move to the new location in the foothills. In the decade after relocation on the Executive Order reservation, the Tule River Indian census steadily declined by attrition to a mere third of the number that had been removed. The diminished agricultural capacity of the Executive Order reservation was evident to early inspectors, but the government ignored their reports, which indicated that only about 250 acres of relatively flat, irrigable land were available for farming. Furthermore, this acreage along the South Fork of the Tule River was not contiguous but located in scattered patches. A second Executive Order was issued on October 3, 1873 to augment the land base by including the drainage of the Middle Fork of the Tule River, about doubling the reservation to include 91,837 acres. The additional lands were withdrawn five years later, however, by an Executive Order of August 2, 1878. The Indian Service tried to entice the Tule River Indians to settle on the new reservation by promising them new irrigation ditches and help to reestablish themselves as successful farmers. The extent to which the Indian Service lived up to its promise to help the Tule River Indians with the difficult task of irrigating the soil on the steep rocky Executive Order reservation is detailed in a separate report. In 1919 conflicts with the South Tule River Independent Ditch Company, a group comprised of downstream non-Indian users, threatened the reservation's water rights. Consequently, the government undertook its most extensive project, that of lining the existing ditches with cement and adding several smaller modifications to the irrigation system. The irrigation work undertaken by the federal government, while making an important starting contribution, was not adequate to fulfill the promise of replacing the agriculturally productive ``Madden Farm'' with a permanent homeland of comparable value for the Tule River Indians. Although they received insufficient help with irrigation, the Indians persisted in maintaining their ditches as best they could. Some tribal members continued to farm the land through the mid-20th century. The Tribe's farming efforts were disadvantaged by the great distance from flour mills for its grain and from markets. The demands of a cash economy eventually overtook the ability of most of the Tribe to support itself on the poorly irrigated land. Money was increasingly needed for food and clothing, medical bills, building materials, household goods and other supplies. Cattle-raising became a viable industry on the Tule River Reservation by the 1930s for a few fortunate families. For most Tule River Indians, however, agriculture was replaced mainly by seasonal wage labor as fruit pickers, ranch hands, workers in the timber industry, and various kinds of unskilled labor. Despite persistent poverty and lack of infrastructure on the reservation, a stable population began to rebuild itself through the latter half of the 20th century.

Mr. NUNES

Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend my deepest condolences to the family and friends of Paula Nowakowski. Paula served the Congress and our nation with distinction for many years, most recently as Chief of Staff to my good friend, the Republican Leader, Mr. Boehner. I had the pleasure of knowing and working with Paula for nearly a decade. She was a trusted advisor and I always appreciated her counsel and support. Her love for the House of Representatives, humility, professionalism, and abilities were well-known. Paula will be sadly missed by all of us who had the honor and privilege of working with her.

Mr. NUNES

Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, as we consider this massive government-run health care bill currently before the House, I would like to remind my colleagues of a few things that have happened over the last year. We spent $1 trillion to bail out banks, investment companies and car companies. We spent another $1 trillion on a stimulus bill that has yet to produce any jobs as promised. This record spending doesn't count the omnibus spending bill that we had and the fact that we grew our budget to $3.6 trillion all in one year. If this weren't enough, we are being asked now to create a new trillion-dollar, government-run health care program despite the fact that we can't pay for the two existing government programs that we have today--Medicare and Medicaid. These two programs have at least $62 trillion in debt that this Congress refuses to recognize. Let me repeat that again: $62 trillion in debt that we face with our two existing government-run health care programs. Mr. Speaker, with $1 trillion here and $1 trillion there, pretty soon, you are talking about real money. What is worse is that, despite all of this spending during record times of high unemployment, this bill will kill American jobs, exporting them overseas. In the meantime, our government leaders continue to run over and grovel to the Chinese to borrow more money to finance the spending. Mr. Speaker, Rome is burning while this Congress fiddles. This Congress is so irresponsible, so reckless, it's like watching a broke, drunk gambler continuing to double down, just trying to break even. Vote ``no.'' Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. NUNES

Mr. NUNES. Madam Speaker, on the legislative day of Wednesday, November 4, 2009, I was unavoidably detained and was unable to cast a vote on a number of rollcall votes. Had I been present, I would have voted: Rollcall 841--``nay.'' Rollcall 842--``noe.'' Rollcall 843--``yea.'' Rollcall 844--``yea.'' Rollcall 845--``aye.'' Rollcall 846--``aye.'' Rollcall 847--``noe.'' Rollcall 848--``noe.'' Rollcall 849--``noe.'' Rollcall 850--``aye.'' Rollcall 851--``noe.'' Rollcall 852--``yea.'' Rollcall 853--``yea.'' Rollcall 854--``yea.'' Rollcall 855--``yea.''

Mr. NUNES

Mr. NUNES. Madam Speaker, on the legislative day of Tuesday, November 3, 2009, I was unavoidably detained and was unable to cast a vote on a number of rollcall votes. Had I been present, I would have voted: rollcall 835--``yea''; rollcall 836--``yea''; rollcall 837--``yea''; rollcall 838--``yea''; rollcall 839--``yea''; rollcall 840--``yea.''

Mr. NUNES

Mr. NUNES. Madam Speaker, on the legislative day of Monday, November 2, 2009, I was unavoidably detained and was unable to cast a vote on a number of rollcall votes. Had I been present, I would have voted: rollcall 832--``yea;'' rollcall 833--``yea;'' rollcall 834--``yea.''

Mr. NUNES

Mr. NUNES. Madam Speaker, on the legislative day of Thursday, October 29, 2009, I was unavoidably detained and was unable to cast a vote on a number of rollcall votes. Had I been present, I would have voted: rollcall 823--``nay''; rollcall 824--``nay''; rollcall 825--``yea''; rollcall 826--``nay''; rollcall 827--``yea''; rollcall 828--``aye''; rollcall 829--``aye''; rollcall 830--``yea''; rollcall 831--``yea.''

Mr. NUNES

Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. NUNES. In its current form, yes.

Mr. NUNES. Yes.

Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, the motion to recommit I have is pretty simple. In fact, what we have before us is legislation that is identical to legislation that this Congress passed in 2003 with overwhelming bipartisan support, so I would hope that you would make it germane.

Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, I want to remind my Democrat colleague on the other side of the aisle that there were two Presidents that were instrumental in building the water projects that turned a desert into the most productive agricultural land in the world. One was named Franklin Roosevelt and the other was named John F. Kennedy. Last time I checked, they were both Democrats. That was back when the Democrats cared about providing jobs to people instead of serving their radical environmental friends in the Bay Area. My, how we've gone a long ways in this Democratic Party. It's sad to see this.

Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.