Sensational Disaster Coverage Harms U.S. Interests

by DEVIN NUNES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Roadmap for America's Energy Future

by DEVIN NUNES
Originally printed in the Washington Examiner.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aid and Comfort to the Enemy?

by DEVIN NUNES

Special Interests Line Up Against San Joaquin Valley Communities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Valley Republicans Seek Options for High Speed Rail Money

by DEVIN NUNES

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

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

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

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

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

Water Wars Update

by DEVIN NUNES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public Pension Hygiene Act

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

by THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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