Devin Nunes

Mr. NUNES

Mr. NUNES. Madam Speaker, on the legislative days of Wednesday, December 5, 2007, and Thursday, December 6, 2007, 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 1127--``yea''; rollcall 1128--``yea''; rollcall 1129--``yea''; rollcall 1130--``nay''; rollcall 1131--``yea''; rollcall 1132--``yea''; rollcall 1133--``yea''; rollcall 1134--``nay''; rollcall 1135--``yea''; rollcall 1136--``nay''; rollcall 1137--``nay''; rollcall 1138--``yea''; rollcall 1140--``nay''; rollcall 1141--``yea''.

Mr. NUNES

Mr. NUNES. Madam Speaker, on the legislative day of Tuesday, December 4, 2007, 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 1123--``nay''; rollcall 1124--``yes''; rollcall 1125--``yes''; rollcall 1126--``yes.''

Mr. NUNES

Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, on the legislative day of Friday, November 9, 2007, 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 1077--``nay''; rollcall 1078--``nay''; rollcall 1079-- ``nay''; rollcall 1080--``yea''; rollcall 1081--``nay.''

Mr. NUNES

Mr. NUNES. Madam Speaker, on the legislative day of Wednesday, October 10, 2007, 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 No. 959--``yea''; rollcall No. 960--``nay.''

Mr. NUNES

Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 876 I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. NUNES

Mr. NUNES. Madam Speaker. I rise today to honor and congratulate Fruit Growers Supply Company as it celebrates its 100th anniversary. Fruit Growers Supply Company was born out of adversity. Organized in 1907 by the members of the Southern California Fruit Growers Exchange (now known as Sunkist Growers) it owes its beginnings to the infamous 1906 San Francisco earthquake and fire. Following that disaster, the demand for lumber for rebuilding increased dramatically--and lumber used (or citrus crates became very scarce and very expensive. The Exchange members formed a separate cooperative, Fruit Growers Supply, to assure the availability of the materials needed to grow, harvest, package and ship it member's citrus. FGS worked with small lumber companies to obtain boxes at a reasonable cost. As citrus production increased, Fruit Growers continued to expand, purchasing additional timberlands in Northern California. While FGS no longer owns any sawmills, it still is one of the largest private landowners in California, with additional recently acquired holdings in Oregon and Washington. In 1916, to meet the growing needs of its members, FGS opened its first Operations Center in Porterville to warehouse supplies needed for the citrus industry. Today, FGS has six Operations Centers throughout the growing regions of California and Arizona available to serve its grower and packer members. In the early 1950s the citrus industry began replacing the standard wooden box with fiberboard cartons. In 1961, FGS built its first carton plant to assure its members of a lower cost, higher quality container in which to ship their Sunkist citrus. Today, FGS' highly efficient corrugated manufacturing plant in Ontario, California produces millions of cartons, not only for Sunkist citrus, but for other agricultural producers as well. FGS' member support continues to expand as needs change. When citrus growers needed efficient water delivery systems, they turned to FGS to design the systems and provide technical support. FGS now is one of the irrigation leaders in agriculture. FGS also owns a manufacturing facility through a subsidiary, United Wholesale Lumber Company, in Visalia, California. United is one of the largest suppliers of pallets to the West Coast shipping industry. In 2002, FGS acquired a group which provides wax and related equipment and services to the agricultural industry. Renamed FGS Packing Services, the groups business grew 50 percent in its first 3 years with FGS. Fruit Growers' proud heritage and ongoing efforts to best serve the needs of its members, and the agricultural community, stand it in good stead for its next 100 years. I ask all members to join me in honoring Fruit Growers Supply Company upon the celebration of its centennial and in commending Fruit Growers for its past and present commitment to providing services and support to the agricultural community.

Mr. NUNES

Mr. NUNES. Madam Speaker, on behalf of Representative Kevin McCarthy and myself, I would like to address remarks that were made on the House floor concerning a grower owned nonprofit marketing cooperative in our districts. Yesterday, during debate related to the 2008 Agriculture Appropriations bill, inaccurate information was conveyed that undermined the integrity of Blue Diamond Growers. I take this opportunity to provide clarifying facts to my colleagues. Blue Diamond is approaching its 100th anniversary as a nonprofit marketing cooperative for thousands of growers in California. Many of the grower members live in my district, and produce the world's best almonds. Blue Diamond is very proud of the fact that the average tenure of its employees is approximately twenty years. This is an outstanding record and demonstrates employee satisfaction with their jobs. The International Longshoreman and Warehouseman's Union has tried to organize Blue Diamond since the late 1980s. They have had no success. Diamond's employees do not want to be in the union and express high job satisfaction. In 1990, the ILWU held an election at Blue Diamond and lost. As recently as May of 2005, Blue Diamond asked the NLRB to hold an election so that Blue Diamond's employees would have the opportunity to vote on whether or not they wished to be members of the ILWU. The ILWU immediately filed a letter with the NLRB stating that they had no interest in representing Blue Diamond workers. Therefore, the election was cancelled. Blue Diamond is ready and willing to hold an election, supervised by the NLRB, at any time the employees want it. Since that time, the ILWU has filed numerous complaints with the NLRB. The original complaints have been resolved to the satisfaction of the NLRB. They covered three employee terminations. It is my understanding that the employees were fired for actions endangering their own personal safety or threatening food quality. However, the NLRB found that two of the firings were improper and those employees were re-hired and given all of their back pay and benefits. The NLRB found the third firing to be proper. In what appears to be an ongoing harassment action against Blue Diamond Growers, the ILWU filed three additional complaints over the firing of employees. The NLRB held all of these firings to be proper, and found in favor of Blue Diamond. Madam Speaker, it is important to have the record clear on this matter, since Blue Diamond Growers treats its employees fairly in all respects. This is clearly demonstrated by the length of employment of most of the employees. I hope that in the future, Representatives concerned about the rights of workers in our districts would more fully examine the facts before making unfounded claims on the House Floor. Blue Diamond Growers and the thousands of farmers and workers who they represent deserve better from this House.

Mr. NUNES

Mr. NUNES. Madam Speaker, on the legislative day of Friday, June 22, 2007, 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 543, ``nay''; rollcall 544, ``nay''; rollcall 545, ``aye''; rollcall 546, ``aye''; rollcall 547, ``aye''; and rollcall 548, ``nay.''

Mr. NUNES

Mr. NUNES. Madam Speaker, I rise today to announce the introduction of the Energy Conservation through ``Smart Meters'' Act. No one can deny the fact that we are in the midst of an energy crisis where supply has outstripped demand. There are many avenues we can pursue to resolve this situation, one of which I have I introduced today. I believe the future of our Nation's electricity grid needs to be smarter and more efficient. While it is a vast issue that needs to be tackled in a multi-level and multi-year plan, we can take a step now to put consumers in control of their personal electricity usage. We can do this by incentivising, through the tax code, the deployment of energy management devices--known as ``Smart Meters.'' A ``Smart Meter'' is an automated electronic electricity metering device that will replace the existing meters on homes and businesses. The first electricity meter was invented in the 1930s at the dawn of electrification in the United States. The meter is based on small wheels turning inside the unit to count kilowatt hours used at a flat price. If you look at your meter today, you will see fundamentally the same device using technology that is more than 70 years old. These meters were invented prior to the development of computers and have no intelligence, memory, or ability to communicate. Certainly if we can place a call on a cell phone that is as thin as a pack of gum, then we can invest in advanced metering technology for home energy use. Because of the advanced age of our metering technology, neither the consumer nor the utility has the kind of real-time information they need to make necessary decisions to best use the available electricity. ``Smart Meters'' change this by harnessing the power of computers and digital communications to create intelligent and connected energy systems. The revolution in technology behind today's ``Smart Meters'' is equivalent to the change from typewriters to a personal computer connected to the Internet. These systems empower consumers to use electricity wisely and help utilities forecast and manage energy loads more efficiently and accurately--quickly reducing electricity outages. The use of new technology will allow customers who reduce consumption when prices are high to save more on their bills. In fact, according to GAO and FERC studies, the widespread adoption of smart metering technologies would save American consumers billions of dollars in avoided electricity costs. While consumers get a better deal on their power, society as a whole will benefit. Consumption will be reduced during peak hours which will reduce greenhouse gases because power companies will no longer have to rely on inefficient and dirty peaking generators to meet the high demand. Madam Speaker, now is the time to deploy 21st century technology to conserve energy and put consumers in control of their electricity bills.

Mr. NUNES

Mr. NUNES. Madam Speaker, I rise today to announce the introduction of the U.S. Specialty Crop Export Opportunities Act. As the Representative of our Nation's most diverse, productive, and highly valued crop base, this legislation is of great importance to my constituents. It is also of great national significance, as the United States seeks to increase competitiveness in the global marketplace. As many of my colleagues representing rural America know, our farmers are faced with enormous challenges. These challenges not only relate to the production of wholesome food and fiber, but are also a direct result of regulatory burdens, environmental laws, and, increasingly, global trade practices. For this reason, problems associated with foreign market access can be highly destructive to American farmers. I introduced the U.S. Specialty Crop Export Opportunities Act today because I believe Congress needs to take a fresh look at how we fund and structure our efforts in support of American agriculture. As we examine U.S. farm policies, Congress should support changes that increase our Government's emphasis on foreign market access and development. In addition, we need to be certain that we have the resources in place to meet the heavy demands associated with fighting unfair trade practices. Absent such a commitment, our balance of agriculture trade will continue to erode and our Nation's farmers will suffer. Madam Speaker, we owe our farmers and rural communities the benefit of aggressive advocacy around the world. Unfortunately, our current governmental organization does not lend itself to this kind of advocacy. By way of example, there is no statutory responsibility on the part of the United States Department of Agriculture, USDA, concerning agricultural exports. Furthermore, current resource allocation suggests we have strayed from the focus needed to effectively promote U.S. agricultural interests around the world. The Foreign Agriculture Service employs 11 full-time equivalent analysts who are solely responsible for trade compliance monitoring. This is of great concern to me, given the number of agreements we have signed and the aggressive nature of our global trade agenda. As part of the U.S. Specialty Crop Export Opportunities Act, we require the USDA to answer tough questions about resource allocation and the Agency's ability to do the job we all expect. Madam Speaker, unfortunately our World Trade Organization, WTO, agreements and numerous Free Trade Agreements are not guarantees of free and open trade. Each agreement requires a process of implementation and compliance monitoring. Absent these follow-up actions, our Nation fails to witness the full benefit of our trade policy. Since my election to Congress, I have received many complaints from frustrated exporters of perishable agricultural commodities. They believe that large commodities and other sectors of our economy are receiving the bulk of our national resources when it comes to trade dispute resolution. The U.S. Specialty Crop Export Opportunities Act will help to alleviate this frustration. The bill establishes a statutory obligation on the part of USDA for exports. It also requires the Secretary to take a number of steps to improve the export process, including: coordination of market analysis between the private sector and FAS; Agency explanation of sanitary and phytosanitary issues associated with each pending export petition; and public availability of information concerning the import requirements of foreign countries. These changes will increase process transparency and provide American farmers information they need to fight trade barriers. In addition, the U.S. Specialty Crop Export Opportunities Act establishes an export credit guarantee program for fruits and vegetables. These perishable commodities would greatly benefit from the cash flow management tool provided by a short-term export credit. The USDA operates export credit guarantee programs today, but their design is not based on the unique circumstances associated with trade in fruits and vegetables. Congress needs to address this shortcoming. Madam Speaker, in addition to giving our exporters more information and providing them with appropriate cash management tools, we need to examine options that will provide additional security against unfair trade practices. One possibility is the establishment of a perishable commodity export indemnification program. This would allow U.S. agriculture exporters to insure against the possibility of unforeseen trade barriers. The U.S. Specialty Crop Export Opportunities Act takes the first step in the establishment of such a program. When our exporters experience unfair trade barriers, they need to know that the U.S. Government will provide the technical and diplomatic support necessary to eliminate those barriers. Indeed, for our farmers to enjoy the full benefits of any agreement, our Government must be in a position to provide agriculture exporters the help they need in a timely manner. Perishable commodities cannot wait in ports for an eventual resolution to unfair sanitary or phytosanitary barriers. Such delays make the risk of trade unacceptable and drive U.S. farmers out of the export business. Madam Speaker, there is clear evidence that we have already paid a significant price for what I believe are poorly coordinated efforts on behalf of American agriculture. Specifically, I am dismayed to report that we have witnessed a trade surplus in fruits and vegetables turn into a significant trade deficit. Over a period of 12 years and following the much heralded World Trade Organization (WTO) General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs, GATT, we have witnessed a transition from $608,442,000 in surplus trade of fruits and vegetables to a $2,295,426,000 deficit. In short, our farmers are not seeing the full benefits of trade liberalization resulting from the GATT. In closing, I think it is important to point out that many of the farmers facing challenges with trade are conducting their business independent of Government support. Fruit and vegetable farmers are not subsidized. They compete on the global market based on quality and efficiency. For this reason, our Nation's position in WTO trade negotiations should be to eliminate the Peace Clause for Chapters 7 and 8 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule. This will allow the U.S. to initiate dispute resolution proceedings in the WTO when trading partners use distorting subsidies. Madam Speaker, when provided a level playing field, U.S. agricultural products are well received by consumers around the world. However, our farmers do not have the resources to fight unfair trade barriers alone. The U.S. Specialty Crop Export Opportunities Act is vital if we are to renew our commitment for free and fair trade on behalf of American agriculture.

Mr. NUNES

Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, on the legislative day of Friday, March 9, 2007, 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 132--``nay''; rollcall 133--``aye''; rollcall 134--``aye''; and rollcall 135--``nay.''

Mr. NUNES

Mr. NUNES. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this intellectually dishonest resolution. I do so in order to challenge the majority party to put their legislating where their mouths have been. The endless criticism to the war in Iraq is clouded by political opportunism and has done little or nothing to improve our chances of victory. We need an honest debate. We need answers from those who support this resolution. What is next? What is your plan? It should come as no surprise that the resolution we are debating today says very little. There are less than 100 words. And while the rhetoric has been flying during the debate, it seems to me that the new Democratic majority is hoping to avoid debate in which they might have to defend their plan in Iraq. What we have here is nothing more than a political exercise, a nonbinding resolution, words with no meaning. Make no mistake, their opposition to the President's plan is political. There is no constructive criticism here. Read their resolution. Iraq is the battleground, Madam Speaker, a key battleground against extremism, terrorism and the expansionist goals of our enemies. If we fail, Iraq will be a hotbed of radical Islamic activity, a pivotal safe haven, a base from which to plan and fund attacks against us. Madam Speaker, how is the danger associated with defeat in Iraq not clear? I ask my colleagues, what evidence do you need? Have you listened to the words of our enemies? Must we have more casualties in American cities before you accept the nature of this global threat? How quickly we forget, Madam Speaker. I urge my colleagues to listen carefully to the words of Osama bin Laden. Last year, bin Laden said, ``Iraq is the focal point of the war on terror. The most important and serious issue today for the whole world is this Third World War. It is raging in Iraq. The world's millstone and pillar is in Baghdad, the capital of the caliphate.'' Another one, ``Jihad against America will continue. Jihad against America will continue economically and militarily. By the grace of Allah, America is in retreat. But more attacks are required.'' Madam Speaker, Osama bin Laden, as well as other Islamic extremists around the world, view the conflict in Iraq as the central battleground in their ideological struggle. Make no mistake, we are at war, and it is about time that some of our members of our government figured it out. Someday soon, the Representatives who are supporting this resolution will have to explain to the voters what they have done to make us safer at home and abroad. Since this resolution does nothing more than embolden our enemies, demoralize our troops, and send mixed messages to our allies, they will have a difficult task before them. Today, unfortunately, we won't hear much about the Democrat plan for Iraq. We will, instead, hear a lot about failure and defeat. We might even hear a conspiracy theory or two. And, of course, we will hear a lot of political posturing. But Madam Speaker, the American people deserve to know the truth. What happens next, Madam Speaker, to those who believe the President is wrong, to those who believe we rushed to war, to those who can't get beyond our national intelligence failures and, instead, persist on conspiracy theories? Tell us, what is next? What is your plan to protect the American people? Madam Speaker, I demand answers from the authors of this resolution. The American people have a right to know. Is your plan to simply stand aside and allow an ideology of hate to consume the Middle East? I implore my colleagues, if you won't heed the warnings of our military and intelligence organizations, listen to al Qaeda's own words. They are speaking directly to you. This is from Deputy leader al-Zawahiri recently. ``I wish to talk to the Democrats in America. You aren't the ones who won the midterm elections, nor are the Republicans the ones who lost; rather, the Mujahadin are the ones who won and the American forces and their allies lost.'' I ask my colleagues, how can you offer this resolution, knowing the enemy we face? Do you really have nothing to offer the American people but this? Is this resolution the best effort of the new Democrat majority in response to our challenge in Iraq? Madam Speaker, we should have an honest debate about Iraq. And my friends who are convinced that the war is wrong need to be accountable for failing to say what is right. In closing, I want to say how proud I am of the men and women who are fighting for our freedom and security all over the world. They don't deserve what we are doing to them today. This resolution is a sham. It is nothing more than political grandstanding, and it is feeding the propaganda machine of our enemy. I have been to Iraq. I have seen the efforts of our soldiers firsthand. They want to win. They have seen the face of the enemy and I can assure you they are committed to winning. If you are committed to winning, vote ``no'' on this resolution

Mr. NUNES

Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to go to the Rules Committee the other evening. Of course it was after the distinguished Rules Committee chairwoman said that they weren't going to accept any of our amendments or a substitute. I made a comment at that point that I was essentially wasting my time in the committee, which is unfortunate. Today we have an opportunity to debate in front of the American people what should be an important policy about energy independence, but this bill doesn't do anything like that, Mr. Speaker. All this bill does is get back at the oil companies. We had many members of the Rules Committee say essentially that it was vengeance. They didn't use the word ``vengeance,'' but essentially I believe that that was the point that they were making because they are putting up a facade that this bill actually does something to lower energy prices to the American people. In fact, all this does is roll back some tax cuts, specifically takes out oil and gas for domestic producers, does nothing to the Middle East producers, and now we are basically going to be left with a bill that isn't going to go anywhere. The majority knows it is not going to go anywhere, and that doesn't even include the process that we have gone through to get this legislation. Earlier one of the speakers--I forget who said it--for the majority side said that the Republicans crafted their energy bills in the backrooms. Well, I would ask the majority if the backrooms included the subcommittees and the full committees, like the normal process that this Congress is supposed to go through where we have full committee debate, we have a bill introduced, we have debate on the bills. Maybe that was the backrooms that you guys were referring to on the other side. In this case, you essentially had a few staff people in the Speaker's office write up a bill. Then they put out a facade that this is going to lower the gas prices to Americans and lower energy costs and be the bridge to the next renewable energy trust fund that they are going to create. It is interesting in the last Congress we had a bipartisan bill that did put money into a trust fund, but you know what we did? We went out and I said, let's take our resources that we have, like in Alaska, let's go and drill in ANWR. Let's put those royalties into a trust fund, and then we can bridge ourselves into the next generation of energy. That is good energy policy. Taxing small domestic oil producers in America is only hurting American-made energy. I am frustrated not only by the policy that has been put out here as an end-all-be-all perfect solution to America's energy solutions, which it is not, but I am even more frustrated--and I normally don't come down here to speak on rules, but I had to come down here and speak on this rule because I was in the Rules Committee the other night and I wasted my time, and everyone in that committee wasted their time because the Rules Committee chairwoman said, before we even met, that she was not going to accept any amendments or even a substitute. This is frustrating. I hope that the majority will live up to their promise to the American people and will have full open and honest debate.

Mr. NUNES. The trust fund that you guys are creating in this bill prohibits clean coal and coal-to-liquid technology.

Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, it is evident in the Democrats' energy bill, to gain and achieve energy independence they are not using any coal in this country. And I hope that the majority party from the Resources Committee can answer at some point during this debate why clean coal and coal-to-liquid technology is not included as a possibility to achieve energy independence. That question needs to be answered before the American people on the House floor before this debate ends.

Mr. NUNES. Reclaiming my time. I think the answer is----

Mr. NUNES. I would ask Mr. McDermott, or the majority party, could you clarify if this trust fund can be used for clean coal technologies, since the United States is known as the Saudi Arabia of coal?

Mr. NUNES. Well, Mr. Speaker, maybe it is better addressed to the majority party and the author of the bill.

Mr. NUNES. Well, I am trying to get clarification on the language in the bill, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, I need some clearance on this. In this trust fund that is created, is clean coal or coal an option as a possibility to use this trust fund?

Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to confirm the long title, because it appears today that we are talking about this bill being about energy independence. And earlier, during the rule debate, it was brought up by the distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee, who referred to the process that was used under the last Congress, referring to Mr. Dreier's process, as being dishonest. Mr. Speaker, this whole process that we are going through today is about dishonesty, and I want to be clear that I am talking about the process. This is unacceptable to me. Because if this is about energy independence, this bill we are going to pass today, then why is there this quote this morning in the Wall Street Journal, and I will read the quote. ``Tomorrow we finish our 100 hours and I will talk about what comes next. And included in that is energy independence.'' Ms. Pelosi made this statement in the Wall Street Journal this morning. So are we debating today about energy independence? We are going to pass this bill about energy independence, or is this going to be something that we are going to do after this? If so, then something about this process is dishonest. I don't know if this bill is about energy independence or, as the Speaker said, in the future we are going to talk about energy independence. I thought this bill was about energy independence. So I hope for the rest of this debate that the majority will clarify this, because I don't understand what this is about. And we have had a lot of strong words stated during the rules debate about dishonesty in the process, and I am thoroughly confused as to who is right. Are we doing energy independence today or are we going to do that tomorrow, as the Speaker said?

Mr. NUNES. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, would it be correct if I asked about the long title of this bill? Is the long title of this bill, to reduce our Nation's dependency on foreign oil by investing in clean, renewable, and alternative energy resources, promoting new emerging energy technologies, developing greater efficiency, and creating a Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve to invest in alternative energy?