by DEVIN NUNES
A shorter version of this commentary ran in the Washington Examiner on September 3, 2010. It was featured by Big Government on September 9, 2010.
When John Boehner was first elected Republican leader, he said he felt like the dog that caught the car. This is a metaphor for someone who works hard to achieve a major goal, only to be confronted with the age old question “What do we do now?” If Republicans take back the House and Senate, the party will actually be the dog that caught the car.
Victory at the polls means Republicans will inherit an angry electorate that has been voting for change since 2006. The country is at a crossroads. In one direction there is big, centralized government that usurps the rights of states, local communities, and individual Americans. It’s the job of the Republican leaders to outline another direction, but that direction is not yet clear to them. This must change before the next election.
Americans punished Republicans in the 2006 and 2008 elections. Conventional wisdom said the country wanted change. The truth is that Americans saw no real difference between Democrats and Republicans. The Republican brand has gone stale and paved the way for a new era of big government and socialism. As Newsweek boldly proclaimed in early 2009, “We are all socialists now.”
Thankfully, the prospect of this socialist era enduring is slim. The American public has learned what socialistic polices really mean. A budget deficit that was $161 billion when the Democrats took control of Congress in 2007 and four years later projected to be $1.47 trillion; and a national debt held by the public that was $5 trillion and four years later projected to be $9.2 trillion. This and a lot more, including a projected $2.6 trillion cost to implement the Democrats’ healthcare bill, have soured the experience of most Americans with a Socialist Golden Age. As Margaret Thatcher said, “…Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people's money.” We just didn’t know that the White House and the Democratic Congress would run out of other people’s money so soon, or that they could accelerate our financial mess so rapidly.
President Obama will be remembered in history for his sweeping legislative success in bringing about an unprecedented era of big government in an American “Great Leap Forward.” And like China’s Great Leap Forward under Mao during the late 1950s and early 1960s, the result will be economic failure. At the forefront of our financial mess are broken entitlement programs. The President has hastened our financial catastrophe but he is not alone in doing nothing to fix the unfunded entitlement liabilities, which are in excess of $60 trillion for Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. The line of politicians wanting to avoid this problem, or unwilling to understand it, extends back for decades.
The Republican leadership has taken the innovative approach of “listening” to the American public, using the latest technology to give Americans a voice in their government. Americans can go online or use their cell phones to recommend cuts in spending on the Republican Whip’s site “You Cut” or submit their ideas to the Republican Leader’s site “America Speaking Out.” Good ideas are then mentioned on the floor of the House of Representatives or may be included in any future Republican agenda.
But listening will only get you so far. At what point do Republican leaders break the news that the country is racing toward financial catastrophe? The Republican Party is not serving the American people well if its leaders imply that catastrophe can be avoided by texting votes for cuts that even if they were adopted would have little impact on our nation’s growing debt. A freeze in spending is good; eliminating earmarks is great; shutting an entire cabinet agency might even be better. Yet after all that, our country still goes bankrupt because the tough decisions on entitlement and tax reform are being ignored.
Republicans should learn a lesson from the Contract With America. In 1994, Republican candidates ran on a set of promises that had been poll tested and focused grouped. An election was won and there were legislative successes in the 12 years that followed. Yet by 2006 and the end of Republican control of Congress, the GOP had failed to convince the public that they could govern any better than the Democrats. The lesson is clear: Republicans have to define themselves through more than rhetoric and platitudes as the protectors of states’ rights, local community control, and, most importantly, individual freedom from the growing power of the federal government.
As the 2010 elections rapidly approach, the Republican leadership must put forward a credible plan that reforms entitlements, simplifies the tax code, and has a real energy policy. These policy changes would result in a balanced budget, a shrinking trade deficit, repayment of the national debt, and put Americans back to work. History will reward Republicans if we are honest with the American people; but first we must be honest with ourselves.
Devin Nunes, a Republican, represents the 21st congressional district of California. He is the author of Restoring the Republic (WND, 2010).
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Friday, July 30, 2010
A GOP Energy Alternative
by THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
Out of the most tedious congressional debate sometimes comes a little ray of policy sunshine. The GOP got a glimmer this week.
As congressional Democrats plotted how to make their "oil-spill" legislation a political liability for Republicans, and as Republicans flapped over how to avoid that fate, one GOP member excused himself from the circus. California Rep. Devin Nunes instead unveiled his "Energy Roadmap," a companion bill to Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan's plan for tax and spending reform. Mr. Nunes wants to get his party thinking about a modern, principled energy policy. Lord knows the GOP could use the help.
Republicans have spent the past decade staying largely true to their belief in cheap fossil fuels, but the rise of the climate debate and "green energy" flummoxed them. Unwilling to be seen as against "clean" energy, they embraced green subsidies. Some excused it as the political price of continued drilling; others just liked the pork.
Calif. Rep. Devin Nunes's nuclear proposal would do more to reduce carbon emissions than any Democratic plan on the table.
Whatever the reason, it's been a boon for ethanol, solar panels, switch grass and General Electric. The Republicans' 2005 energy bill was an ode to Jimmy Carter, putting the government back in charge of picking energy winners and losers via handouts and loan guarantees. President Bush praised "wood chips." Even as gas prices soared to chants of "drill, baby, drill," Republicans carefully adopted the motto: "All of the above." Heaven forbid anyone think Republicans were not for solar water heaters.
And yet this defensive crouch has not, in fact, earned Republicans more oil drilling or nuclear power. All it has done is distort energy markets and embolden Democrats to ratchet back fossil fuels, crank up subsidies, and go for cap and tax. Republicans dissemble, having long ago ceded the right to talk about free energy markets.
On nearly any policy issue—Social Security, taxes, health care, education—Republicans are at least aware of a savvy conservative reform position. Not so energy policy, where they remain confused.
Purists will advocate getting government out of the regulatory way while axing all subsidies—and that would indeed be bliss. But it doesn't help Republicans with today's political realities. The carbon debate will continue to rage; renewables aren't going away; and many Americans worry about both foreign oil and the environment.
Mr. Nunes' interest is how to answer these concerns in a more free-market way. The Californian's road map is the product of years of work, most recently with Mr. Ryan and a handful of Republicans with energy expertise—Illinois's John Shimkus, Utah's Rob Bishop, and Idaho's Mike Simpson. It's a bill designed to produce energy, not restrict it. It returns government to the role of energy facilitator, not energy boss. It costs nothing and contains no freebies. It instead offers a competitive twist to government support of renewable energy.
The bill is unabashedly focused on allowing America to responsibly access more of its own low-cost resources. It opens up more of the Outer Continental Shelf, and takes another run at opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It restores the leasing for Western oil shale that the Obama administration has squelched.
Rather than throw federal loan guarantees at uncertain nuclear plants, the legislation attacks the true problem: bureaucratic roadblocks. It streamlines a creaky regulatory process, requires the timely up-or-down approval of 200 plants over 30 years, and offers new flexibility for dealing with nuclear waste. Mr. Nunes likes to point out that his nuclear provision alone would do more to reduce carbon emissions than any Democratic proposal in existence. And it would in fact create, ahem, green jobs. Imagine that.
The bill accepts the argument that renewables serve a purpose but can't yet compete against traditional energy. It would divert all the federal resource royalties into a fund. Companies or individuals with proven renewable technology would take part in a reverse auction. They'd bid for government bucks; those that can produce the most megawatts for the least money win. Auction winners forego other federal handouts. And consider this: The more fossil fuel extraction, the more royalties (potentially hundreds of billions of dollars) available to boost alternative energy.
In a better world, renewables would sink or swim. But Mr. Nunes notes that if there is a public will for supporting these technologies, this is at least a "more free-market and transparent way to deploy them immediately." Today, bureaucrats choose unproven technologies on which to bestow taxpayer grants. Blanket tax credits flow to industries—regardless of individual companies' merit. Auction participants, in contrast, would compete, and the market would first have a say in their success. If the GOP is determined to go green, this is megawatts more principled than the status quo.
Mr. Nunes doesn't suggest his bill is the end-all-be-all; his primary goal is to get his party engaged. Watch for the GOP response. The Republican leadership has shown little inclination to adopt bold proposals for the midterms. And the oil spill has spooked it on energy. Yet Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's recent decision to shelve cap-and-tax has shown that even Democrats now acknowledge the public isn't buying their high-cost, government mandate, subsidy approach. If not some new GOP energy principles now, when?
Out of the most tedious congressional debate sometimes comes a little ray of policy sunshine. The GOP got a glimmer this week.
As congressional Democrats plotted how to make their "oil-spill" legislation a political liability for Republicans, and as Republicans flapped over how to avoid that fate, one GOP member excused himself from the circus. California Rep. Devin Nunes instead unveiled his "Energy Roadmap," a companion bill to Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan's plan for tax and spending reform. Mr. Nunes wants to get his party thinking about a modern, principled energy policy. Lord knows the GOP could use the help.
Republicans have spent the past decade staying largely true to their belief in cheap fossil fuels, but the rise of the climate debate and "green energy" flummoxed them. Unwilling to be seen as against "clean" energy, they embraced green subsidies. Some excused it as the political price of continued drilling; others just liked the pork.
Calif. Rep. Devin Nunes's nuclear proposal would do more to reduce carbon emissions than any Democratic plan on the table.
Whatever the reason, it's been a boon for ethanol, solar panels, switch grass and General Electric. The Republicans' 2005 energy bill was an ode to Jimmy Carter, putting the government back in charge of picking energy winners and losers via handouts and loan guarantees. President Bush praised "wood chips." Even as gas prices soared to chants of "drill, baby, drill," Republicans carefully adopted the motto: "All of the above." Heaven forbid anyone think Republicans were not for solar water heaters.
And yet this defensive crouch has not, in fact, earned Republicans more oil drilling or nuclear power. All it has done is distort energy markets and embolden Democrats to ratchet back fossil fuels, crank up subsidies, and go for cap and tax. Republicans dissemble, having long ago ceded the right to talk about free energy markets.
On nearly any policy issue—Social Security, taxes, health care, education—Republicans are at least aware of a savvy conservative reform position. Not so energy policy, where they remain confused.
Purists will advocate getting government out of the regulatory way while axing all subsidies—and that would indeed be bliss. But it doesn't help Republicans with today's political realities. The carbon debate will continue to rage; renewables aren't going away; and many Americans worry about both foreign oil and the environment.
Mr. Nunes' interest is how to answer these concerns in a more free-market way. The Californian's road map is the product of years of work, most recently with Mr. Ryan and a handful of Republicans with energy expertise—Illinois's John Shimkus, Utah's Rob Bishop, and Idaho's Mike Simpson. It's a bill designed to produce energy, not restrict it. It returns government to the role of energy facilitator, not energy boss. It costs nothing and contains no freebies. It instead offers a competitive twist to government support of renewable energy.
The bill is unabashedly focused on allowing America to responsibly access more of its own low-cost resources. It opens up more of the Outer Continental Shelf, and takes another run at opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It restores the leasing for Western oil shale that the Obama administration has squelched.
Rather than throw federal loan guarantees at uncertain nuclear plants, the legislation attacks the true problem: bureaucratic roadblocks. It streamlines a creaky regulatory process, requires the timely up-or-down approval of 200 plants over 30 years, and offers new flexibility for dealing with nuclear waste. Mr. Nunes likes to point out that his nuclear provision alone would do more to reduce carbon emissions than any Democratic proposal in existence. And it would in fact create, ahem, green jobs. Imagine that.
The bill accepts the argument that renewables serve a purpose but can't yet compete against traditional energy. It would divert all the federal resource royalties into a fund. Companies or individuals with proven renewable technology would take part in a reverse auction. They'd bid for government bucks; those that can produce the most megawatts for the least money win. Auction winners forego other federal handouts. And consider this: The more fossil fuel extraction, the more royalties (potentially hundreds of billions of dollars) available to boost alternative energy.
In a better world, renewables would sink or swim. But Mr. Nunes notes that if there is a public will for supporting these technologies, this is at least a "more free-market and transparent way to deploy them immediately." Today, bureaucrats choose unproven technologies on which to bestow taxpayer grants. Blanket tax credits flow to industries—regardless of individual companies' merit. Auction participants, in contrast, would compete, and the market would first have a say in their success. If the GOP is determined to go green, this is megawatts more principled than the status quo.
Mr. Nunes doesn't suggest his bill is the end-all-be-all; his primary goal is to get his party engaged. Watch for the GOP response. The Republican leadership has shown little inclination to adopt bold proposals for the midterms. And the oil spill has spooked it on energy. Yet Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's recent decision to shelve cap-and-tax has shown that even Democrats now acknowledge the public isn't buying their high-cost, government mandate, subsidy approach. If not some new GOP energy principles now, when?
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Gangsters Going Green in our National Forests: Marijuana Green
by DEVIN NUNES
Yesterday, I introduced the Federal Lands Counterdrug Strategy and Enforcement Enhancement Act (H.R. 5645), legislation designed to combat drug trafficking on our nation’s public lands.
Drug traffickers, primarily Mexican and Asian drug gangs involved with cannabis cultivation and marijuana distribution, are increasingly using our nation’s public lands to operate large-scale operations. Eighty three percent of all plants eradicated from U.S. forests between 2004 and 2008 were removed from national forests in California. Sadly, Tulare County recorded three consecutive seasons in which the number of marijuana plants seized exceeded $1 billion.
This illicit activity poses a significant threat to our nation and those Americans who choose to camp, hike, hunt, ride, or otherwise use our nation’s public lands.
Traffickers find the remoteness of the public lands appealing as it reduces the risk of detection. By cultivating marijuana on our public lands, international drug trafficking organizations avoid the risk and expense of smuggling their product across the border. It also makes distribution less risky because it can be easily driven to major cities, where it is distributed to street dealers. Accordingly, cultivation of marijuana is expanding from the “M7” states (California, Hawaii, Kentucky, Oregon, Tennessee, Washington, and West Virginia) into Utah, Idaho, Texas, Wisconsin, and Ohio.
Drug traffickers also are growing increasingly aggressive toward law enforcement officials and members of the public who enter the area in which drugs are being cultivated and produced. They are encircling their plots – some of which have as many as 75,000 plants – with crude explosives and patrolling them with firearms, including AK-47s. In one instance reported last year by The Washington Post, two Lassen County law enforcement officers were wounded by a gunman guarding a grove on Bureau of Land Management property. In another incident, an eight-year-old boy and his father were shot after they accidentally stumbled onto a hidden marijuana grow in El Dorado County. One Placer County law enforcement official reported that, “In every garden, every single encounter, we find weapons.”
Moreover, drug traffickers are causing serious and extensive environmental damage to our public lands. Animal poisons are used as are chemical repellants, fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides – many of which are banned in the United States. Traffickers often pour fertilizer directly into streams and pools and run it through their homemade irrigation systems. The use and abandonment of these and other hazardous substances – such as gasoline – results in toxic levels of chemicals in the soil, groundwater, streams, and rivers. Eventually, these hazardous substances enter our residential and agricultural water supplies.
I find this situation utterly unacceptable. We cannot meaningfully address drug trafficking on public lands without a comprehensive strategy. Such a strategy has been authorized and developed for the southwestern border and I am firmly convinced that one should be done to better combat drug trafficking on public lands.
The legislation that I have introduced will directly address this situation by requiring the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) to develop a strategy to combat drug trafficking on public lands. My legislation will also increase the penalties available for cultivating or manufacturing drugs on public land.
Yesterday, I introduced the Federal Lands Counterdrug Strategy and Enforcement Enhancement Act (H.R. 5645), legislation designed to combat drug trafficking on our nation’s public lands.
Drug traffickers, primarily Mexican and Asian drug gangs involved with cannabis cultivation and marijuana distribution, are increasingly using our nation’s public lands to operate large-scale operations. Eighty three percent of all plants eradicated from U.S. forests between 2004 and 2008 were removed from national forests in California. Sadly, Tulare County recorded three consecutive seasons in which the number of marijuana plants seized exceeded $1 billion.
This illicit activity poses a significant threat to our nation and those Americans who choose to camp, hike, hunt, ride, or otherwise use our nation’s public lands.
Traffickers find the remoteness of the public lands appealing as it reduces the risk of detection. By cultivating marijuana on our public lands, international drug trafficking organizations avoid the risk and expense of smuggling their product across the border. It also makes distribution less risky because it can be easily driven to major cities, where it is distributed to street dealers. Accordingly, cultivation of marijuana is expanding from the “M7” states (California, Hawaii, Kentucky, Oregon, Tennessee, Washington, and West Virginia) into Utah, Idaho, Texas, Wisconsin, and Ohio.
Drug traffickers also are growing increasingly aggressive toward law enforcement officials and members of the public who enter the area in which drugs are being cultivated and produced. They are encircling their plots – some of which have as many as 75,000 plants – with crude explosives and patrolling them with firearms, including AK-47s. In one instance reported last year by The Washington Post, two Lassen County law enforcement officers were wounded by a gunman guarding a grove on Bureau of Land Management property. In another incident, an eight-year-old boy and his father were shot after they accidentally stumbled onto a hidden marijuana grow in El Dorado County. One Placer County law enforcement official reported that, “In every garden, every single encounter, we find weapons.”
Moreover, drug traffickers are causing serious and extensive environmental damage to our public lands. Animal poisons are used as are chemical repellants, fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides – many of which are banned in the United States. Traffickers often pour fertilizer directly into streams and pools and run it through their homemade irrigation systems. The use and abandonment of these and other hazardous substances – such as gasoline – results in toxic levels of chemicals in the soil, groundwater, streams, and rivers. Eventually, these hazardous substances enter our residential and agricultural water supplies.
I find this situation utterly unacceptable. We cannot meaningfully address drug trafficking on public lands without a comprehensive strategy. Such a strategy has been authorized and developed for the southwestern border and I am firmly convinced that one should be done to better combat drug trafficking on public lands.
The legislation that I have introduced will directly address this situation by requiring the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) to develop a strategy to combat drug trafficking on public lands. My legislation will also increase the penalties available for cultivating or manufacturing drugs on public land.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Monuments to Unemployment
by DEVIN NUNES
As Americans confront the economic hardship of double digit unemployment and economic stagnation, they are looking to their national leaders with growing distrust. And why shouldn’t they? Leaders in Washington have shown a disregard for the economic health of our country, pursuing policies that destroys jobs, lowers economic growth and bankrupts the U.S. government.
President Obama may soon worsen economic conditions—particularly in rural America. According to a leaked Department of Interior (DOI) memo, the President is currently considering the establishment of 14 new National Monuments in 9 states. These designations will have a devastating impact on surrounding communities because a monument designation forces out people dependent on public lands for their economic survival.
Without logging, mining, drilling, and other resource management activities, communities in and around these new monuments lose their jobs. Economic collapse comes astonishingly fast as the infrastructure needed to extract, process and transport resources vanishes almost overnight. Meanwhile, our nation becomes increasingly dependent on foreign energy sources, timber, and even food.
The ability of Presidents to act unilaterally and restrict access to public lands is rooted in the Antiquities Act of 1906. The century old law was enacted in response to fears of the destruction and theft of U.S. archaeological sites and treasures; since then, it has been used on a much grander scale by both Democratic and Republican administrations. Today, there are 71 National Monuments located in 26 states, covering some 136 million acres.
Many of these monuments warrant protective status. Montezuma Castle National Monument in Arizona, for example, represents one of the best preserved cliff dwellings in North America, while the Aztec Ruins National Monument in New Mexico protects the prehistoric remains of an ancestral Pueblo society. The protection of these sites and others like them was in accordance with the intent of the Antiquities Act, which authorized the President to proclaim national monuments on federal lands with “historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest.”
However, various White House Administrations have interpreted the law as providing the President much broader powers—a view upheld by the courts. This has made the Antiquities Act an irresistible tool of radical environmentalists and their allies seeking to restrict access to public lands. Environmental politics was behind, for example, President Clinton’s establishment of 19 new monuments – including designations in California – that decimated the state’s timber industry. California lost 84 wood product mills and factories, representing more than 54,000 jobs. Sierra Forest Products and the small community of Dinuba were among the casualties as Sierra and Sequoia National Park timber production plummeted from 183 million board feet per year to only 10 million.
These “political” monument designations are clearly not in keeping with the spirit or intent of the Antiquities Act. For this reason, I have introduced legislation – the National Monuments Designation Transparency and Accountability Act – that requires all new monuments to be approved by Congress within two years of their establishment. Without Congressional approval, a monument designation made under the reformed Antiquities Act would terminate as would any restrictions placed upon its uses.
To restore meaningful oversight and transparency, consultation with local communities and the public will be required prior to future designations. My bill will also require that within a year of a new monument designation, the Department of Interior produce a report on its economic impact, in addition to the impact on our nation’s energy security.
The changes I have outlined are intended to prevent use of the Antiquities Act for political purposes. My bill will not eliminate existing National Monument designations, nor will it prevent the President from acting to protect national treasures or important historic sites in the future. Instead, the reforms I propose will force the President to justify his actions before the American people. Without reform, rural America remains at risk of politically motivated land restrictions that not only undermine our economy but increase our nation’s dependence on importation of goods that can and should be produced here.
Many organizations associated with public lands and rural America support the reforms I have outlined. To date, endorsements have come from: American Sheep Industry Association, Arizona Wool Growers Association, California Forestry Association, California Wool Growers Association, Colorado Wool Growers Association, Idaho Wool Growers Association, Independent Oil Producers Association, Montana Wool Growers Association, National Association of Counties, Public Lands Council, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, Nevada Cattlemen’s Association, Nevada Wool Growers Association, New Mexico Cattle Growers’ Association, New Mexico Federal Lands Council, New Mexico Wool Growers, Inc., Northern New Mexico Stockmen’s Association, Oregon Cattlemen’s Association, Oregon Sheep Growers Association, South Dakota Cattlemen’s Association, Texas Sheep & Goat Raisers Association, Utah Cattlemen’s Association, Utah Wool Growers Association, Washington State Sheep Producers, and Wyoming Wool Growers Association.
If you or your organization would like to be added as supporters of the National Monument Designation Transparency and Accountability Act, please contact my office.
As Americans confront the economic hardship of double digit unemployment and economic stagnation, they are looking to their national leaders with growing distrust. And why shouldn’t they? Leaders in Washington have shown a disregard for the economic health of our country, pursuing policies that destroys jobs, lowers economic growth and bankrupts the U.S. government.
President Obama may soon worsen economic conditions—particularly in rural America. According to a leaked Department of Interior (DOI) memo, the President is currently considering the establishment of 14 new National Monuments in 9 states. These designations will have a devastating impact on surrounding communities because a monument designation forces out people dependent on public lands for their economic survival.
Without logging, mining, drilling, and other resource management activities, communities in and around these new monuments lose their jobs. Economic collapse comes astonishingly fast as the infrastructure needed to extract, process and transport resources vanishes almost overnight. Meanwhile, our nation becomes increasingly dependent on foreign energy sources, timber, and even food.
The ability of Presidents to act unilaterally and restrict access to public lands is rooted in the Antiquities Act of 1906. The century old law was enacted in response to fears of the destruction and theft of U.S. archaeological sites and treasures; since then, it has been used on a much grander scale by both Democratic and Republican administrations. Today, there are 71 National Monuments located in 26 states, covering some 136 million acres.
Many of these monuments warrant protective status. Montezuma Castle National Monument in Arizona, for example, represents one of the best preserved cliff dwellings in North America, while the Aztec Ruins National Monument in New Mexico protects the prehistoric remains of an ancestral Pueblo society. The protection of these sites and others like them was in accordance with the intent of the Antiquities Act, which authorized the President to proclaim national monuments on federal lands with “historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest.”
However, various White House Administrations have interpreted the law as providing the President much broader powers—a view upheld by the courts. This has made the Antiquities Act an irresistible tool of radical environmentalists and their allies seeking to restrict access to public lands. Environmental politics was behind, for example, President Clinton’s establishment of 19 new monuments – including designations in California – that decimated the state’s timber industry. California lost 84 wood product mills and factories, representing more than 54,000 jobs. Sierra Forest Products and the small community of Dinuba were among the casualties as Sierra and Sequoia National Park timber production plummeted from 183 million board feet per year to only 10 million.
These “political” monument designations are clearly not in keeping with the spirit or intent of the Antiquities Act. For this reason, I have introduced legislation – the National Monuments Designation Transparency and Accountability Act – that requires all new monuments to be approved by Congress within two years of their establishment. Without Congressional approval, a monument designation made under the reformed Antiquities Act would terminate as would any restrictions placed upon its uses.
To restore meaningful oversight and transparency, consultation with local communities and the public will be required prior to future designations. My bill will also require that within a year of a new monument designation, the Department of Interior produce a report on its economic impact, in addition to the impact on our nation’s energy security.
The changes I have outlined are intended to prevent use of the Antiquities Act for political purposes. My bill will not eliminate existing National Monument designations, nor will it prevent the President from acting to protect national treasures or important historic sites in the future. Instead, the reforms I propose will force the President to justify his actions before the American people. Without reform, rural America remains at risk of politically motivated land restrictions that not only undermine our economy but increase our nation’s dependence on importation of goods that can and should be produced here.
Many organizations associated with public lands and rural America support the reforms I have outlined. To date, endorsements have come from: American Sheep Industry Association, Arizona Wool Growers Association, California Forestry Association, California Wool Growers Association, Colorado Wool Growers Association, Idaho Wool Growers Association, Independent Oil Producers Association, Montana Wool Growers Association, National Association of Counties, Public Lands Council, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, Nevada Cattlemen’s Association, Nevada Wool Growers Association, New Mexico Cattle Growers’ Association, New Mexico Federal Lands Council, New Mexico Wool Growers, Inc., Northern New Mexico Stockmen’s Association, Oregon Cattlemen’s Association, Oregon Sheep Growers Association, South Dakota Cattlemen’s Association, Texas Sheep & Goat Raisers Association, Utah Cattlemen’s Association, Utah Wool Growers Association, Washington State Sheep Producers, and Wyoming Wool Growers Association.
If you or your organization would like to be added as supporters of the National Monument Designation Transparency and Accountability Act, please contact my office.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Garden of Eden Without A Garden
by DEVIN NUNES
Recently, U.S. District Court Judge Oliver Wanger ruled that the science used to block Delta water deliveries to farmers and rural communities was flawed and incomplete. The judge’s order, which increases water flows to our communities, is a significant victory for farmers. But is it time to celebrate?
Some in our community, including political leaders, have grasped this decision as evidence that San Joaquin Valley residents can win their water back, despite inaction by Congress. The truth, however, is that Judge Wanger’s decision will not provide water supply certainty to valley farmers or residents. That’s because the judge’s decisions are made within the confines of bad laws sent down to him by Congress – laws that have been expanded, exploited and transformed by the left in order to gain control of our nation’s vast resources. For this reason, it’s not a matter of if but when the courts will be forced to restrict pumping activity again.
San Joaquin Valley farmers have delivered a bounty to our nation and the world. This bounty has come from hard working family farmers who cultivate the bulk of our nation’s fruit and vegetables using the most advanced cultural techniques available. Many of the more than 300 crops produced in California are grown exclusively in our state and are recognized around the world for their quality. However, without reliable water supplies there would not be enough food produced from San Joaquin Valley farms to feed Californians, let alone the world. Despite this fact, legislators continue to enact laws like the San Joaquin River Settlement that reduce our water supplies and dry up farmland.
It is no secret that environmental activists and their patrons in the Democratic Party want to transform our region into marshland and desert. These radicals are seeking the restoration of the natural landscape of the San Joaquin Valley and admit that such an effort would require abandoning at least 1.3 million acres of farmland. A key element of this plan involves the incremental diversion of the water supplies needed by farmers and rural communities. These diversions are made in the name of the environment but lack the scientific grounding to demonstrate any meaningful environmental benefit.
Pressure from suffering farmers and residents, which has gained significant national exposure over the past year, did not compel Congress to legislate relief to end the government-imposed drought. However, as a token to valley leaders, Democrats funded a Delta water study by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Water groups, farming organizations and Democratic lawmakers sold this new study to the public as the precursor for change in how Delta water is managed. These hopes, however, ignore the presence of environmental radicals and activists that populate government and pollute policy.
We have already witnessed clear political bias at the NAS. A prominent scientist, Dr. Patricia Glibert, was recently removed from the NAS committee studying the Delta because her research didn’t support the claim that water exports are harming the environment. Dr. Glibert’s research suggests that urban wastewater pollution and high ammonia concentrations are to blame for species decline in the Delta – a fact long argued by San Joaquin Valley water users. However, environmentalists and their Democratic friends in Congress reject this possibility because it would interfere with their campaign to end Delta water exports.
The consequence of Dr. Gilbert’s removal is significant. It stacks the deck against an honest evaluation of the science used to attack valley farmers and allows activists to manipulate the outcome. Indeed, Dr. Gilbert’s removal resulted in the resignation of another prominent researcher, Michael McGuire, who explained that he couldn’t contribute to the final NAS report if all views were not considered.
The NAS is being exploited to justify suffering in the San Joaquin Valley – with no real discussion of the facts. The silencing of Dr. Gilbert would be laughable if we were describing a study commissioned by the former Soviet Union, but we are talking about U.S. National Academy of Science.
What does all of this mean? San Joaquin Valley residents will remain in the cross hairs of radicals for the foreseeable future. It is unfortunate that the views of these radicals are not more widely scrutinized by the press – particularly in our region, the western front in the battle against radical environmentalists. Instead, organizations like the Natural Resources Defense Council, Defenders and Wildlife, and EarthFirst are free to conduct their anti-capitalist, anti-development campaign behind what amounts to an environmental Iron Curtain. Those of us who try to expose the truth often find ourselves with few allies. Instead, we are often mocked and ridiculed; or worse subject to epithets in an attempt to change the subject and destroy us personally.
Ongoing efforts to block water deliveries to our region and points further south are clearly part of a nightmarish master plan to control California’s basic natural resources and prevent them from being used in economic development. With this power, the radical environmentalists can achieve their goal of transforming the San Joaquin Valley into a Godless green utopia; that is, a Garden of Eden without a garden.
It is time for Californians and, in particular, San Joaquin Valley residents, to take a stand. We must all recognize that donations to radical environmental groups help finance the assault on our communities. These groups infest our schools with propaganda and hijack local governments with green causes based on junk science.
San Joaquin Valley residents, including our region’s hard working family farmers, are not enemies of the environment. Far from destroying nature, the great water projects of the 20th Century enhanced our environment by creating a greenbelt suited to growing crops that feed the world. Our rich agricultural heritage can be kept alive but only if politicians are held accountable for their actions not their words.
Recently, U.S. District Court Judge Oliver Wanger ruled that the science used to block Delta water deliveries to farmers and rural communities was flawed and incomplete. The judge’s order, which increases water flows to our communities, is a significant victory for farmers. But is it time to celebrate?
Some in our community, including political leaders, have grasped this decision as evidence that San Joaquin Valley residents can win their water back, despite inaction by Congress. The truth, however, is that Judge Wanger’s decision will not provide water supply certainty to valley farmers or residents. That’s because the judge’s decisions are made within the confines of bad laws sent down to him by Congress – laws that have been expanded, exploited and transformed by the left in order to gain control of our nation’s vast resources. For this reason, it’s not a matter of if but when the courts will be forced to restrict pumping activity again.
San Joaquin Valley farmers have delivered a bounty to our nation and the world. This bounty has come from hard working family farmers who cultivate the bulk of our nation’s fruit and vegetables using the most advanced cultural techniques available. Many of the more than 300 crops produced in California are grown exclusively in our state and are recognized around the world for their quality. However, without reliable water supplies there would not be enough food produced from San Joaquin Valley farms to feed Californians, let alone the world. Despite this fact, legislators continue to enact laws like the San Joaquin River Settlement that reduce our water supplies and dry up farmland.
It is no secret that environmental activists and their patrons in the Democratic Party want to transform our region into marshland and desert. These radicals are seeking the restoration of the natural landscape of the San Joaquin Valley and admit that such an effort would require abandoning at least 1.3 million acres of farmland. A key element of this plan involves the incremental diversion of the water supplies needed by farmers and rural communities. These diversions are made in the name of the environment but lack the scientific grounding to demonstrate any meaningful environmental benefit.
Pressure from suffering farmers and residents, which has gained significant national exposure over the past year, did not compel Congress to legislate relief to end the government-imposed drought. However, as a token to valley leaders, Democrats funded a Delta water study by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Water groups, farming organizations and Democratic lawmakers sold this new study to the public as the precursor for change in how Delta water is managed. These hopes, however, ignore the presence of environmental radicals and activists that populate government and pollute policy.
We have already witnessed clear political bias at the NAS. A prominent scientist, Dr. Patricia Glibert, was recently removed from the NAS committee studying the Delta because her research didn’t support the claim that water exports are harming the environment. Dr. Glibert’s research suggests that urban wastewater pollution and high ammonia concentrations are to blame for species decline in the Delta – a fact long argued by San Joaquin Valley water users. However, environmentalists and their Democratic friends in Congress reject this possibility because it would interfere with their campaign to end Delta water exports.
The consequence of Dr. Gilbert’s removal is significant. It stacks the deck against an honest evaluation of the science used to attack valley farmers and allows activists to manipulate the outcome. Indeed, Dr. Gilbert’s removal resulted in the resignation of another prominent researcher, Michael McGuire, who explained that he couldn’t contribute to the final NAS report if all views were not considered.
The NAS is being exploited to justify suffering in the San Joaquin Valley – with no real discussion of the facts. The silencing of Dr. Gilbert would be laughable if we were describing a study commissioned by the former Soviet Union, but we are talking about U.S. National Academy of Science.
What does all of this mean? San Joaquin Valley residents will remain in the cross hairs of radicals for the foreseeable future. It is unfortunate that the views of these radicals are not more widely scrutinized by the press – particularly in our region, the western front in the battle against radical environmentalists. Instead, organizations like the Natural Resources Defense Council, Defenders and Wildlife, and EarthFirst are free to conduct their anti-capitalist, anti-development campaign behind what amounts to an environmental Iron Curtain. Those of us who try to expose the truth often find ourselves with few allies. Instead, we are often mocked and ridiculed; or worse subject to epithets in an attempt to change the subject and destroy us personally.
Ongoing efforts to block water deliveries to our region and points further south are clearly part of a nightmarish master plan to control California’s basic natural resources and prevent them from being used in economic development. With this power, the radical environmentalists can achieve their goal of transforming the San Joaquin Valley into a Godless green utopia; that is, a Garden of Eden without a garden.
It is time for Californians and, in particular, San Joaquin Valley residents, to take a stand. We must all recognize that donations to radical environmental groups help finance the assault on our communities. These groups infest our schools with propaganda and hijack local governments with green causes based on junk science.
San Joaquin Valley residents, including our region’s hard working family farmers, are not enemies of the environment. Far from destroying nature, the great water projects of the 20th Century enhanced our environment by creating a greenbelt suited to growing crops that feed the world. Our rich agricultural heritage can be kept alive but only if politicians are held accountable for their actions not their words.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Cuban Communists and the California Farm Bureau
by DEVIN NUNES
Earlier today, the House Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee held a hearing to discuss the liberalization of trade with Communist Dictator Castro’s government. You can see video of the hearing here.
You can read my full remarks to the committee below:
HEARING REMARKS OF REP. DEVIN NUNES
Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade
"I do not support liberalizing trade with Cuba, a nation governed by a brutal Communist Dictatorship. To justify this initiative, some may draw parallels with China or other foreign powers that have also been hostile to American freedom. But make no mistake, Cuba is not China and these comparisons are not valid. Here are a few reasons why:
• Cuba, not China, is stoking anti-American sentiment throughout the Western Hemisphere and is openly hostile to our nation.
• Cuba is a state sponsor of terrorism – along with Iran, Syria, and Sudan.
• Cuba is one of a handful of totalitarian states remaining in the world, alongside Burma and North Korea.
• Trade with Cuba means trade with one company – Alimport. Any talk of open trade with Cuba is a distortion. What we are talking about is open trade with Castro’s import/export regime.
Let me be clear, I am not defending Chinese currency manipulation. And I believe the U.S. has many challenges ahead with respect to our relationship with China. But it is inappropriate and dangerous to use the China model of engagement for the brutal totalitarian regime in Cuba.
And while I understand that American foreign policy has taken on a bold new look and feel under the Obama Administration, I am compelled to ask a basic question: Is this Congress seriously proposing to advance trade with terrorist states before completing work on agreements with Democratic allies and strategic partners?
Trade with Cuba is not a question of economics, it is a matter of geopolitics and American national security.
I recognize that liberalization might make a few Americans a lot of money. And I don’t blame certain elements of our economy, including the California Farm Bureau, for entertaining profits over the larger ideals of freedom and national security.
To my knowledge, no members of the California Farm Bureau have been murdered for their political views. Here is a picture depicting Cubans murdered by the Castro regime.
And it might come as a surprise to supporters of trade with Cuba that killing a cow in that country, without government permission, results in longer prison sentences than killing a human being.
The California Farm Bureau and other exporters do not represent this nation’s national interests. The American people are tired of sectional interests governing our country. As leaders, we are charged with the responsibility of putting aside these narrow interests in favor of the national interest.
As a Representative of California’s number one agriculture district, I can assure you I have done so with respect to Cuba.
Yet, I fear many of my colleagues have lost sight of this responsibility.
While we discuss trade with Cuba, this committee has sat idle while Congressional leaders have blocked consideration of vital agreements with Columbia, Panama, and South Korea.
Our allies in Central and South America are under constant assault by hostile powers – including Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez. Without our support, we leave these friendly Democracies at the mercy of anti America sentiment and militant Marxist ideology.
So I ask, when will the House consider the Columbian and Panamanian agreements?
And while we are asking questions, I would also like to know why so many anti-trade Democrats - those responsible for holding up consideration of important free trade agreements with our Democratic allies - are so intent on liberalizing trade with the Communist Dictatorship in Cuba?
I understand that some in this House may share the Marxist views of Castro and Chavez, but we must all recognize that American freedom is incompatible with these regimes.
And quite frankly, with so many opportunities to enhance trade relationships with democracies, it is utterly incomprehensible that time and tax dollars are being wasted on Cuba. Yet here we sit.
I urge my Democratic colleagues to take a stand one way or the other. Either end the waiting game currently confronting our allies – Columbia, South Korea, and Panama, and give them a vote on their trade agreements. Or kill them now and get on with your agenda.
Perhaps some of my colleagues would be more comfortable negotiating free trade agreements with Iran, North Korea and Venezuela."
Earlier today, the House Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee held a hearing to discuss the liberalization of trade with Communist Dictator Castro’s government. You can see video of the hearing here.
You can read my full remarks to the committee below:
HEARING REMARKS OF REP. DEVIN NUNES
Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade
"I do not support liberalizing trade with Cuba, a nation governed by a brutal Communist Dictatorship. To justify this initiative, some may draw parallels with China or other foreign powers that have also been hostile to American freedom. But make no mistake, Cuba is not China and these comparisons are not valid. Here are a few reasons why:
• Cuba, not China, is stoking anti-American sentiment throughout the Western Hemisphere and is openly hostile to our nation.
• Cuba is a state sponsor of terrorism – along with Iran, Syria, and Sudan.
• Cuba is one of a handful of totalitarian states remaining in the world, alongside Burma and North Korea.
• Trade with Cuba means trade with one company – Alimport. Any talk of open trade with Cuba is a distortion. What we are talking about is open trade with Castro’s import/export regime.
Let me be clear, I am not defending Chinese currency manipulation. And I believe the U.S. has many challenges ahead with respect to our relationship with China. But it is inappropriate and dangerous to use the China model of engagement for the brutal totalitarian regime in Cuba.
And while I understand that American foreign policy has taken on a bold new look and feel under the Obama Administration, I am compelled to ask a basic question: Is this Congress seriously proposing to advance trade with terrorist states before completing work on agreements with Democratic allies and strategic partners?
Trade with Cuba is not a question of economics, it is a matter of geopolitics and American national security.
I recognize that liberalization might make a few Americans a lot of money. And I don’t blame certain elements of our economy, including the California Farm Bureau, for entertaining profits over the larger ideals of freedom and national security.
To my knowledge, no members of the California Farm Bureau have been murdered for their political views. Here is a picture depicting Cubans murdered by the Castro regime.
And it might come as a surprise to supporters of trade with Cuba that killing a cow in that country, without government permission, results in longer prison sentences than killing a human being.
The California Farm Bureau and other exporters do not represent this nation’s national interests. The American people are tired of sectional interests governing our country. As leaders, we are charged with the responsibility of putting aside these narrow interests in favor of the national interest.
As a Representative of California’s number one agriculture district, I can assure you I have done so with respect to Cuba.
Yet, I fear many of my colleagues have lost sight of this responsibility.
While we discuss trade with Cuba, this committee has sat idle while Congressional leaders have blocked consideration of vital agreements with Columbia, Panama, and South Korea.
Our allies in Central and South America are under constant assault by hostile powers – including Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez. Without our support, we leave these friendly Democracies at the mercy of anti America sentiment and militant Marxist ideology.
So I ask, when will the House consider the Columbian and Panamanian agreements?
And while we are asking questions, I would also like to know why so many anti-trade Democrats - those responsible for holding up consideration of important free trade agreements with our Democratic allies - are so intent on liberalizing trade with the Communist Dictatorship in Cuba?
I understand that some in this House may share the Marxist views of Castro and Chavez, but we must all recognize that American freedom is incompatible with these regimes.
And quite frankly, with so many opportunities to enhance trade relationships with democracies, it is utterly incomprehensible that time and tax dollars are being wasted on Cuba. Yet here we sit.
I urge my Democratic colleagues to take a stand one way or the other. Either end the waiting game currently confronting our allies – Columbia, South Korea, and Panama, and give them a vote on their trade agreements. Or kill them now and get on with your agenda.
Perhaps some of my colleagues would be more comfortable negotiating free trade agreements with Iran, North Korea and Venezuela."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)