[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 17]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 23651]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                9/11 RECOMMENDATIONS IMPLEMENTATION ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                             HON. SAM FARR

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Friday, October 8, 2004

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 10) to 
     provide for reform of the intelligence community, terrorism 
     prevention and prosecution, border security, and 
     international cooperation and coordination, and for other 
     purposes:

  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Ose amendment.
  My friend and colleague from California has indicated that Navy 
facilities in San Diego are at risk if his amendment is not passed.
  I have a Navy facility in my district so I can appreciate his 
concern. In fact, after September 11th, the Navy constructed a force 
protection barrier around their facility in Monterey.
  But, I disagree with my colleague over his efforts to exempt the 
construction of portions of a 14-mile immigration barrier south of San 
Diego from most of the Nation's environmental laws.
  A society is judged by how it reacts to adversity, and after 9/11 
this Chamber and this country were galvanized into action in the wake 
of that tragic day.
  There is not a single member in this Chamber that isn't willing to 
fight terrorism or to protect our country and its citizens. Let's get 
that straight.
  The amendment we have before us now is more about immigration control 
than it is about national security. P.L. 104-208 authorized the 
construction of fencing and road improvements in the border area near 
San Diego, CA.
  In short, the border improvements were pursued, planned, and 
construction started before 9/11.
  So, we know there will be improvements to the barriers at the border. 
I don't question the importance of completing the fence--that's not 
what this is about.
  What this amendment is about is ignoring--worse, circumventing--an 
ongoing process.
  Mr. Ose's ill-conceived amendment attempts to fix a problem that 
doesn't exist.
  This amendment undermines and overturns efforts made by local 
communities, civic groups, State agencies, and elected representatives 
who have been working to come to consensus with the Bureau of Customs 
and Border Protection.
  This amendment even exempts from protection the Bald Eagle, a symbol 
of America's freedom that is surpassed only by our American Flag.
  My colleagues should be aware that the California Coastal Commission 
continues to work hard to complete the Southwest Border Fence, in 
compliance with the regulatory process established by 16 of our most 
essential public health, environmental, and cultural heritage laws and 
executive orders.
  In fact, a meeting is scheduled for the 26th of October to work out 
the concerns between the Coastal Commission and the Department of 
Homeland Security's office of Homeland Security, Customs and Border 
Protection in charge of construction to resolve this issue.
  We are a country built on laws. Our laws are in place not only to 
protect us today but also to protect this great nation for future 
generations.
  There is no good reason why this project requires such a sweeping 
free ride.
  By shirking the process and simply giving this project a blanket 
exemption from 16 of our most essential environmental laws, we are 
submitting that we can't do more than one thing at a time--and I don't, 
and won't, accept this.
  I have more faith in our country, our laws, and the process.
  This amendment will set a horrible precedent on multiple levels and I 
encourage all of my colleagues to vote ``no.''

                          ____________________