Devin Nunes

Mr. NUNES

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

Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Washington. Since this House is being denied the opportunity to debate legislation that would have a meaningful impact on the California water crisis, I think it is appropriate to take a closer look at the bill before us today. This bill funds a water recycling project for the Bay Area. That is it. The sponsor of this bill pounds his chest and says he is providing 2.6 billion gallons of water for his constituents. Congratulations. What the sponsor will not disclose is that he has worked consistently to deny delivery of 200 billion gallons of water to an area that has 40 percent unemployment in some cases, that has folks standing in food lines, and land dry with tumbleweeds. Now, it is ironic that this bill provides water only to one little area of San Francisco, the Greater San Francisco Bay Area, which already receives pristine water from a beautiful glacial valley that is not far from where I live in the Yosemite National Park called Hetch Hetchy. You heard me correct. The Bay Area gets water from one of the Nation's flagship national parks. The City of San Francisco, knowing that it needed to provide water to its citizens, destroyed a portion of Yosemite National Park to construct its own water supply reservoir. I actually have a picture of what it looked like. This is what it looked like before. If you have ever been to Yosemite, you can see that it looks very similar to Yosemite Valley. But now it is dammed up. It is dammed up to provide water to the people of San Francisco. Now, that is really not the worst of it, because we hear so much about how the other side of the aisle cares so much about the fish and the poor fishermen that are losing their jobs because the water is not being delivered to the Delta to save all these fish that need to be saved. Well, let's go back and look at a little map of Hetch Hetchy. This is Hetch Hetchy, Yosemite National Park. Here is the dam. And the water is piped. There is not a river. It is piped directly into the San Francisco Bay Area. This is the same water, Mr. Speaker, that would go down to save the fish that they care about so much. So do they honestly care about fish, or do they really just care about providing water to their people and serving their radical environmental friends that have worked for decades to cut water off to people that are just trying to provide food for America? The leaders in the Bay Area and the surrounding region have used their muscle in the past to actually get by other environmental laws. They destroyed not only the beautiful national park when they needed water, they subsequently exempted their water project from the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. That is why they built the pipe, so they wouldn't even have to have a river. When the Bay Area needed to add to its runway, they exempted environmental laws to build a new airport in the beautiful San Francisco Bay, one of the greatest areas of California. But despite their own record, when folks a mere two hours away are bled dry of water, they have opposed a temporary waiver to allow not 2 billion gallons of water like this does, but 200 billion gallons of water. I support these water recycling projects, but I oppose this bill because the author of this bill is the leader of the effort to cut off 200 billion gallons of water that would serve the greater San Joaquin Valley, Los Angeles and San Diego. So absent the inclusion of language that will address this government-imposed drought, this bill should be rejected.

Mr. NUNES

Mr. NUNES. I thank my good friend from Florida. Madam Speaker, this water crisis has been created by the government. This bill that's on the floor today provides water for San Francisco. I would love for San Francisco to have water. But in the grand scheme of things, this is a 2-billion gallon project. We are losing 200 billion gallons out to the ocean because we simply won't let the pumps run at historical levels. This is a closed rule. It never should have been a closed rule, and we need to find out why is it that the majority keeps closing down these rules. I think we may be getting close to the answer if we look back at a few things that were said a couple weeks ago at a public event at the Department of Interior. The distinguished chairman, who is the sponsor of the bill, the distinguished chairman of the Education Committee, took credit for the lawsuits that turned the pumps off. I was not quite sure which lawsuits he had brought forward, but he said, I don't think I have lost many lawsuits in court over the last 10 or 15 years. Now, I did some research. I wasn't sure what lawsuits the distinguished chairman had brought forward. So it made me believe, well, maybe there is some coordination going on between the left-wing radicals and the fringe environmental movement, and how is that being coordinated from this body. These are questions that we need to know about. So the shocking admission of coordination between the Democrats in the House and radical environmentalists deserves our attention, and I want to ask a few questions that I hope can be answered at some point by some committee in this Congress. The first is, how much money is going to fund these organizations? Several billion dollars have been paid out to these fringe environmental groups that continue to bring these lawsuits forward, taxpayer dollars funding shutting off water to people. Another question that needs to be answered: the bureaucrats at the government agencies, such as the National Marine Fisheries Service, are they involved? Have these radical groups been coordinating with the scientists and biologists over at the National Marine Fisheries Service? Because nobody in their right mind would say that these pumps are resulting in the death of killer whales. It is not believable. Another question we need to figure out is the water czar that the Department of Interior has appointed, that President Obama has appointed, has been active with these special interests in the past at the highest levels. He has served on their boards, and he has given them money. Are there more people at Interior that are involved with these biologists that are coming up with these plans and helping these environmental groups bring these lawsuits that the taxpayers are paying for? This is a closed rule. It is a California water issue here, to provide water for San Francisco; yet we can't even debate or have an amendment to provide water to the bulk of California. So we need to get to the bottom of this. Hopefully we will turn down this rule, vote it down, so that we can allow the real issues to be debated. Vote ``no'' on this resolution.

Mr. NUNES. I thank my friend from Florida. I just want to make sure that we set the record straight on this salmon fishing issue. A lot of people are probably watching out there and wondering, well, are these salmon fishermen really out of work? The truth is that the salmon fishermen can still fish; they just can't fish for salmon. And that is because the government--us, this body--and others told the fishermen that they cannot fish for salmon. Every other country in the world can fish for salmon, just us. So not only are we not allowing the salmon fishermen to fish, we are also paying them not to fish; several hundred million dollars we have given the salmon fishermen so that they will not fish for salmon. Meanwhile, we have 40,000 people that are without work, and they get nothing. So there is no correlation between these pumps that have run for 50 years and salmon fishermen not fishing, except for this: the government says, salmon fishermen, you can't fish for salmon. The government also says, keep the pumps shut off so that people in the San Joaquin Valley don't have any water and can't grow any crops to provide Americans food. So this whole argument about the poor salmon fishermen is complete fiction. I would like to know where my colleagues were--some of them who were in this body--in the 1980s when they ran every Portuguese American fisherman out of the San Diego area. There were several thousand mostly Portuguese fishermen, and nobody came to their aid. They fished for tuna. All those jobs were lost to foreign countries. And now all of a sudden we're here and we're worried about salmon fishermen? Bogus, absolutely bogus. Shameful on this body.

Mr. NUNES

Mr. NUNES. Madam Speaker, on the legislative day of Friday, September 25, 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 738--``nay''; rollcall 739--``nay.''

Mr. NUNES

Mr. NUNES. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the life and public service of Jim Maples, a teacher, a coach, past Tulare County supervisor, and a close friend. Some people in this world become larger than life, not because of their physical size or presence, but because of the number of people they influence in their lifetime. Jim Maples was both a father figure and a friend to many. His influence has been felt throughout the San Joaquin Valley. Maples graduated from Porterville High School and Porterville College. He earned degrees from Fresno State and UCLA. Prior to becoming county supervisor, Maples was on the faculty at Porterville College for 34 years, serving as chairman and advisor of the technical vocational department. Long active as a coach, Maples was inducted into the California Community College Basketball Hall of Fame in 1986. He was also named to the Porterville College Athletic Hall of Fame in 1999, placed on the Porterville High School Wall of Fame in 2000 and received the Book of Golden Deeds Award by the Exchange Club International. Maples also had the privilege of serving on the Tulare County Board of Supervisors from 1992 until 2003. Maple's dedication to Tulare County was full-time. He was a powerful advocate for local law enforcement and was constantly engaged in the defense of our area's heritage and quality of life. Maples proudest accomplishment can be found in his loving family. He enjoyed a 54-year marriage with wife Myrna and was the father of two children; Vickie and Jaime. Jim Maples left his community of Tulare County a far richer place than the one he found, and for that we are blessed. He was a leader, a mentor, a statesman and will surely be missed.

Mr. NUNES

Mr. NUNES. Madam Speaker, on behalf of myself and Congressman George Radanovich I rise to offer gratitude to the heroism and strength of the Hubbard family. Jeff and Peggy Hubbard lost their son Jared, a Marine, in Iraq in 2004. Six months later, their remaining two sons, Nathan and Jason, both enlisted together in the Army--to honor Jared and serve their country. Both Nathan and Jason served in the same unit in Iraq. In August of 2006, Nathan lost his life while defending freedom, leaving Jason as the remaining sole survivor of his family. Since then, the Hubbard family has shown grace and strength during these most difficult of times. Because of their sacrifice, in 2008, Congress passed and President Bush signed into law the Hubbard Act which provides benefits to those soldiers who separate honorably as a sole survivor. The Hubbards have shared the burden of service to this Nation with honor and focused resolve. Today, I ask that this legislative body recognize the strength of their family, the bravery of Jared and Nathan and the ultimate sacrifice they paid for our country.

Mr. NUNES

Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, on the legislative day of Thursday, September 17, 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 710--``aye''; rollcall 711--``aye''; rollcall 712--``aye''; rollcall 713--``aye''; rollcall 714--``aye''; rollcall 715--``aye''; rollcall 716--``aye''; rollcall 717--``aye''; rollcall 718--``aye''; rollcall 719--``no.''

Mr. NUNES

Mr. NUNES. If the gentleman will yield for another point of clarification, you referred several times to this unelected task force, auto dealer or auto company task force. And we have seen these czars that have been appointed by the President. We have 30-some or 40-some czars, I don't know. Every day we add a new czar. Is there a difference between the czars and the automotive task force? Was there a czar of the auto task force?

Mr. NUNES. If I remember my geography correctly, there is a lake that separates Wisconsin and Michigan, correct?

Mr. NUNES. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I know my friend has spent a lot of time on these issues. We were involved in the first bailout back in the day, and I remember when you and I were very concerned about the country, where we were heading with the debt piling up. And then we got into the new administration with the stimulus bill, and keeping with get 'er done, they actually got that done, borrowed almost $1 trillion, and now they have very little of that money spent, out the door. Unemployment was only supposed to go to 8 percent. Now unemployment is at 10 percent. In my home State of California, it is well over 10 percent. In my district, it's almost 20 percent. So they got it done, but really nothing got done. And when you look at the cap-and-trade bill or the cap-and-tax bill, that was another example of getting it done and really getting nothing done, because ultimately, in their bill, if it becomes law, it won't take any CO2 out of the air because you're going to have China and India continuing to build coal-fired power plants. In fact, your home State of Ohio I know pays 3 cents a kilowatt for its electricity because you use one of the greatest resources in America, which is coal. And if you look at California today, in California we've passed, basically, cap-and-trade legislation through the State legislature. And I don't know if the gentleman knows this already, but in California we're paying 17 cents a kilowatt for electricity. So it's no wonder that California's unemployment rate continues to go up, costs to Americans continue to go up. And so the Democrat Congress definitely is trying to get something done, but in the process of getting legislation passed out of this House, it's legislation that, at the end of the day, is going to hurt America. And just to finish up on this health care debate, we were told numerous times by the Speaker that she had the votes. The majority leader said they had the votes. And now, here we are today. They don't even have the votes in the Energy and Commerce Committee, which is still meeting today in committee, and it seems like they're not getting it done--and thankfully. We don't want them to get this done because we don't want the government to take over our health care system, which the gentleman, I think, was pointing out.

Mr. NUNES. Just to correct the gentleman, 256 Democrats, I believe.

Mr. NUNES. And how many votes does it take to pass a bill out of the House?

Mr. NUNES. And if the gentleman would yield again, we've heard several times from the White House and from the Democrat leadership and this Congress blaming the Republicans for not having a plan. And as the gentleman pointed out, first of all, they've never wanted to work with us. Second of all, they've never asked us for our plans. And third, the Republicans have very good plans, some plans that myself and Paul Ryan from Wisconsin have worked on and we're going to continue to work on over the break. The good thing, the best thing about the plan that we've put together, that the Republicans have put together, is that we deal with the Medicaid problems in this country. And one thing we have to look at over the long run is that debt continues to pile up. And we have three major problems in this country that no one wants to talk about, and that's the unfunded liabilities that this country has. We have the unfunded liabilities of Medicaid, unfunded liabilities of Medicare, unfunded liabilities of Social Security. The sad part about the Democrat plan is that they want to put more and more people on Medicaid. And now in my district, only 22 percent of the doctors will see Medicaid patients. And so the Republican plan that we've put forward actually deals with the Medicaid problem that we have in this country and actually gives people better health care. And that is, I think, something that needs to be done.

Mr. NUNES. But I will add, if the gentleman will yield for a second, I will add that this was a bipartisan bailout that was passed.

Mr. NUNES. So it was the White House working in conjunction with the Democrat-controlled House that passed the first bailout. And I think one of the things we're going to talk about later, as we transition into, I think, some of the things we want to talk about is AIG.

Mr. NUNES. I think you really have to look at where that money that went first to AIG and then somehow got to, guess where? Goldman Sachs.

Mr. NUNES. And if the gentleman would yield again, I want to make one important point back to the point that you're making, and that is that the Congress, for many years, has spent too much money. There is no question about that, Republicans and Democrats have spent too much money. But if you look at the budgets that have been put forward with the stimulus bill and the bailouts and the government takeover of companies, you look at the unfunded liabilities, the Obama administration potentially could triple or quadruple the debt by the time President Obama is out of the Presidency. That doesn't include that the Obama administration could pile up more debt than all previous Presidents combined.

Mr. NUNES. Will the gentleman yield for just a point of clarification?

Mr. NUNES. For the folks who don't quite understand this, this clause that you have in front of you was in the stimulus bill, and this basically approved the bonuses to AIG.

Mr. NUNES. I just have a question for the gentleman. Do you know how many Republicans voted for the stimulus bill?

Mr. NUNES. Another clarification. During the bailout and before the bailout, how much money had AIG already received from the Federal Government?

Mr. NUNES. A hundred and----

Mr. NUNES. So then we went on to award bonuses.

Mr. NUNES. But that could be an important clue. I'm on the Ways and Means Committee, and we did not put that language in there. So Mr. Rangel claimed that there were three people that were writing the bill.