Sam Farr

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor to call attention to important legislation that has been introduced today, The Military Readiness Enhancement Act. I am an original cosponsor of this legislation which would replace ``Don't Ask Don't Tell,'' with a non- discrimination policy for all military personnel. A decade ago, ``Don't Ask Don't Tell'' was enacted as a compromise to allow lesbian, gay and bisexual military personnel to serve honorably in the military as long as they didn't disclose their sexual orientation. It was a bad policy then and it's a bad policy now. It has resulted in the discharge of more than 10,000 dedicated and trained military personnel merely on the basis of their sexual orientation. There are two issues this bill is addressing--military readiness and civil justice. Military readiness is being compromised by discharging critically needed military linguists to fight the Global War on Terrorism. Shortly after September 11, 2001, we can vividly remember the frantic search for linguists, particularly Arabic and Farsi speakers. But because of ``Don't Ask Don't Tell,'' the Department of Defense has discharged 20 Arabic linguists and 6 Farsi linguists for no other reason than their sexual orientation. No one can dispute that these linguists, who attended the Defense Language Institute located in my congressional district, are mission essential to the Global War on Terrorism. If we didn't think so before, surely we can agree now that language capability and proficiency is just as much of a weapon system as guns and bullets. Repealing ``Don't Ask Don't Tell'' is just as much a civil justice issue. It has created a separate class of people who are discriminated against based solely on their sexual orientation. Sixty years ago our military was at the forefront of the civil rights struggle by accepting African Americans as soldiers, sailors and airmen. The Military Readiness Enhancement Act will extend a non-discrimination policy for sexual orientation much as it did in adopting a color-blind non- discrimination policy. Ending racism in the military, which produced military leaders like Colin Powell, the former Joint Chiefs of Staff and Secretary of State, was an advancement of civil rights for all Americans. The Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law for all citizens. Just because you decide to honorably serve your country by joining the military, doesn't mean you should have to forfeit the right to equal protection under the law.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Manuel Santana, a devoted member of our community. Mr. Santana was born and raised in Los Angeles. Though he is a favorite local artist and restaurateur, Mr. Santana focused academically on education, psychology and sociology, receiving a degree from Los Angeles State College in 1950. In 1952, Mr. Santana was recognized as a burgeoning young artist and offered a scholarship to Otis Art Institute. At the Institute, Mr. Santana studied painting and composition with such noteworthy artists as Martin Lubner, Morton Dimonstein and Arnold Mesches. Since that time, Mr. Santana has been dedicated to the Santa Cruz community, a commitment that has lasted for over 40 years. Mr. Santana's community service includes founding the Martin Luther King Committee, receiving an award as a UCSC Fellow for Merrill College, directing numerous civic organizations, and serving several terms as President of the Cabrillo Music Festival. Mr. Santana's dedication to the arts and our community has enhanced our cultural and artistic intellect and we are most appreciative for his involvement. In addition to Mr. Santana's dedication to the arts, his profound knowledge of delicious Mexican cuisine is legendary in the 17th District. Mr. Santana owned and operated two Mexican restaurants, both renowned for their menu and atmosphere. Manuel's Mexican Restaurant in Aptos is celebrating its 40th year of operation, a testament to its reputation as a local favorite. Also owned and operated by Mr. Santana is his beautiful and magical Jardines de San Juan located in historic San Juan Bautista. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to Mr. Santana for his ceaseless support of the arts and community. It truly is an honor to speak on his behalf and I wish him and the Santana family all the best.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Gary Garmann, a local architect that brought the beauty of form to the 17th District. Mr. Garmann passed away on January 24, 2005 at age 62. He is survived by his loving wife, Robin, his son, Rees; daughter Jodi; his parents Dorothy and Fritz Garmann, of Silverdale, Washington and his brother Ken Garmann of Yelm, Washington. Gary came to Santa Cruz in 1977, with a goal to expand his professional goals, and he made his presence known ever since. He helped rebuild the downtown region of Santa Cruz after the devastating Loma Prieta earthquake in 1989, by designing such buildings as LuLu Carpenter's and the Borders building downtown. These beautiful buildings now stand as local landmarks, and a testament to Mr. Garmann's talent as an architect. Mr. Garmann's generosity and commitment to the community extended far beyond his ability to design beautiful architecture. He also selflessly donated his time to the Kuumbwa Jazz Center, where he sat on the board, as well as the Santa Cruz Museum of Art and History. Mr. Garmann additionally assisted in the planning of the Santa Cruz homeless shelter, giving his time and energy to those most deeply in need. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my deepest sympathy to Mr. Garmann's family by celebrating his life and his contribution to society. His beautiful buildings, his generous spirit and his love for others, will stand as a testament to his character long into the future. Mr. Garmann is admired by all for his dedication both to his business and the community and he will be greatly missed.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. We have heard a lot of talk here today, and I submit that this is not the answer, to emasculate all the laws. I would bet that if the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), myself and any other interested party sat down, one meeting with all the interested parties, we could resolve this. But that is not the way they want to proceed. This was not a recommendation of the 9/11 Commission. This is essentially emasculating all laws to get an environmental project completed. And emasculating all laws is not the way to do it. This amendment is a good amendment because it does not allow my colleagues to emasculate all laws. What it allows us to do is to let this process work. And with the pressure that has been brought here today, we can get that fence built. The opposition on this side is not against the fence, it is against emasculating all the laws of the land in order to get there. So I ask for an ``aye'' vote. Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record a memorandum of the Congressional Research Service, dated February 7, 2005, regarding the REAL ID Act. Congressional Research Service, February 7, 2005. memorandum To: House Committee on Homeland Security, Attention: Sue Ramanathan; and House Committee on the Judiciary, Attention: Kristin Wells. From: Stephen R. Vina and Todd Tatelman, Legislative Attorneys, American Law Division. Subject: Legal Analysis of Sec. 102 of H.R. 418, Waiver of Laws Necessary for Improvement of Barriers at Borders. Pursuant to your request on February 3, this memorandum analyzes section 102 of H.R. 418, the REAL ID Act. Section 102, captioned ``Waiver of Laws Necessary for Improvement of Barriers at Borders,'' provides the Secretary of Homeland Security with authority to waive all laws he deems necessary for the expeditious construction of the barriers authorized to be constructed by Sec. 102 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) (P.L. 104-208, Div. C, codified at 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1103 note) and removes judicial review from such waiver decisions. Specifically, this memorandum discusses the extent to which Congress has passed laws that provide waivers comparable to Sec. 102 of H.R. 418 and outlines some of the legal issues that could potentially arise if Sec. 102 is passed in its current form. In view of the short time frame for response, the following analysis is necessarily brief and we refer you to CRS Report RS 22026, Border Security: Fences Along the U.S. International Border for background information on Sec. 102 of IIRIRA and the border fence. H.R. 418, Sec. 102 Section 102 of H.R. 418 would amend Sec. 102(c) of IIRIRA to read as follows: (c) Waiver.-- (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority to waive, and shall waive, all laws such Secretary, in such Secretary's sole discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this section. (2) No judicial review.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), no court shall have jurisdiction-- (A) to hear any cause or claim arising from any action undertaken, or any decision made, by the Secretary of Homeland Security pursuant to paragraph (1); or (B) to order compensatory, declaratory, injunctive, equitable, or any other relief for damage alleged to arise from any such action or decision. Waiver provisions If enacted, the new Sec. 102 would provide the Secretary of Homeland Security with not only the authority to waive all laws he determines necessary to ensure the expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under Sec. 102 of IIRIRA, but the requirement that the Secretary do so. This provision could provide the Secretary with broader waiver authority than what is currently in Sec. 102( c) of IIRIRA. This authority would apparently include laws other than the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act, but may not include a waiver of protections established in the Constitution. All laws waived, however, must be determined by the Secretary to be necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads. The waiver authority provided by this amendment would also seem to apply to all the barriers that may be constructed under the authority of Sec. 102 of IIRIRA (i.e., barriers constructed in the vicinity of the border and the barrier that is to be constructed near the San Diego area). Congress commonly waives preexisting laws, though the process necessary to complete the waiver and the number of laws waived vary considerably from provision to provision. Even more common is the use of the phrase, ``notwithstanding any other provision of law.'' While the use of a broad ``notwithstanding any other provision of law'' infrequently governs interpretation, such directives seem facially preclusive, and some courts have determined that ``notwithstanding'' language may serve to explicitly preempt the application of other laws. Other courts, however, have held that such provisions are generally not dispositive in determining the preemptive effect of a statute. After a review of federal law, primarily through electronic database searches and consultations with various CRS experts, we were unable to locate a waiver provision identical to that of Sec. 102 of H.R. 418--i.e., a provision that contains ``notwithstanding language,'' provides a secretary of an executive agency the authority to waive all laws such secretary determines necessary, and directs the secretary to waive such laws. Much more common, it appears, are waiver provisions that (1) exempt an action from other requirements contained in the Act that authorizes the action, (2) specifically delineate the laws to be waived, or (3) waive a grouping of similar laws. The most analogous provisions that we located appear to be, at least on their face, the following: 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1652(c): Allows the Secretary of the Interior and other Federal officers and agencies the authority to waive any procedural requirements of law or regulation which they deem desirable for authorizations that are necessary for or related to the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Trans-Alaska oil pipeline system (e.g., rights-of-way, permits, and leases). 25 U.S.C. Sec. 3406: Allows the Secretaries of the Interior, Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, notwithstanding any other law, to waive any statutory requirement, regulation, policy, or procedure promulgated by their agency that is identified by a tribal government as necessary to implement a submitted tribal plan under the Indian Employment, Training and Related Services Demonstration Act of 1992, as amended. 20 U.S.C. Sec. 7426: Provides almost identical waiver language to that of 25 U.S.C. Sec. 3406, but for plans submitted by tribal governments for the integration of education and related services provided to Indian students. There are many other provisions that arguably grant broad waiver authority similar to that of Sec. 102, but contain qualifications or reporting requirements that seem to limit their breadth. For example, 43 U.S.C. Sec. 2008 allows the President to waive provisions of federal law he deems necessary in the national interest to facilitate the construction or operation of crude oil transportation systems, but such waivers must be submitted to Congress, and Congress must pass a joint resolution before the President can act on the waivers. As mentioned above and as the examples we have set forth arguably demonstrate, the breadth of waiver authority granted by Sec. 102 of H.R. 418 does not appear to be common in the federal law searched. Judicial review provisions By including the language ``no court,'' Sec. 102(c)(2) of H.R. 418 appears to preclude judicial review of a Secretary's decision to waive provisions of law by both federal and state courts. The preclusion of judicial review in state court and of state claims appears buttressed by the fact that Sec. 102(c) is explicitly intended to preclude judicial review of nonstatutory laws--a term which would seem to imply the inclusion of state constitutional and common law claims. It is generally accepted that Article III of the United States Constitution grants Congress the authority to regulate the jurisdiction, procedures, and remedies available in federal courts. However, what remains uncertain is whether Congress's authority, pursuant to Article III, extends to the jurisdiction, procedures, and remedies of state courts. In addition, it remains uncertain to what extent Congress has Article III authority to prevent courts, state or federal, from addressing and remedying issues arising under the United States Constitution. With respect to Congress's ability to control the jurisdiction of state courts, the Supreme Court has ruled that subject to a congressional provision to the contrary, state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over all the classes of cases and controversies enumerated in Article III, except for suits between States, suits in which either the United States or a foreign state is a party, and those considered within the traditional jurisdiction of admiralty law. Thus, it appears possible to argue that Congress has a plenary power to allocate jurisdiction between the state and federal courts. In other words, if, for example, Congress can make jurisdiction over an area of law exclusively federal, thereby depriving state courts of any ability to hear the claim, it appears that Congress may also be able to remove a cause of action from state courts without concurrently granting jurisdiction to the federal courts. State courts, however, are often considered to be independent and autonomous from the federal court system. This independent status has led some scholars to argue that because the Constitution appears to reserve to the states the authority to control the jurisdiction of their own courts, Congress's ``only means of allocating jurisdiction is through control of the federal court's jurisdiction.'' The argument that state courts are autonomous can be derived, in part, from the Supreme Court's doctrine with respect to its ability to review decisions from state courts. While the Court has the authority to review a decision of a state's highest court, it has repeatedly held that it will not do so if the decision rests upon adequate and independent state grounds. This rule is arguably designed to protect a state's interest in developing and applying its own laws. Thus, it would appear that an argument can be made that Congress does not possess the authority to regulate the jurisdiction of state courts directly. It may be the case, however, that Congress's ability to control the jurisdiction of the federal courts indirectly effects and alters the jurisdiction of the state courts, which would appear to preserve their autonomous status. Turning to Congress's ability to remove jurisdiction with respect to claims arising under the Constitution, it appears that Supreme Court precedent requires that at least some forum be provided for the redress of constitutional rights. While it appears that the Supreme Court has not directly addressed whether there needs to be a judicial forum to vindicate all constitutional rights, it appears that the Court has taken to noting constitutional reservations about legislative denials for jurisdiction for judicial review of constitutional issues, as well as construction of statutes that purport to limit the Court's jurisdiction. At least one justice, however, has indicated that there have been particular cases, such as political question cases, where all constitutional review is in effect precluded. Nevertheless, the Court has generally found a requirement that effective judicial remedies be present. For example, in cases involving particular rights, such as the availability of effective remedies for Fifth Amendment takings, the Court has held that ``the compensation remedy is required by the Constitution.'' In addition, lower federal courts appear to have held that, in most cases, some forum must be provided for the vindication of constitutional rights. Cases such as these would seem to provide a basis for the Court to find that parties seeking to vindicate other particular rights must have a judicial forum for such challenges; therefore, the Court may construe the provisions of H.R. 418 in a manner that preserves this right.

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond, first, to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter). He is right, there is in existing law the authorization to waive those issues. It has never been used. It has never been used. This waives all laws, labor laws, every kind of law. This is a draconian approach to try to get the job done. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have remaining?

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman). (Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, it has never been done before, waiving all labor laws, all contract laws, all small business laws, all laws relating to sacred places. It is a broad sweep, just a total repeal of all of those laws or a waiver of all those laws.

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment is simple and straightforward. It strikes Section 102, which is entitled the ``Waiver of Laws Necessary for the Improvement of Barriers and Borders'' from the bill. I think the provision is trying to fix a process that is not broken. I offer this amendment to strike Section 102, not to stop construction of the remaining 3 miles of the border fence, but to preserve the rule of law that this country was founded on. I want my colleagues to listen. I want to make this very clear. The breadth of this provision is unprecedented. The border fence in San Diego is under construction right now. Of the 14 miles authorized to be constructed, more than 9 miles of triple fence have been completed. Only two sections have not been finished. In order to finish the fence, the Customs and Border Patrol has proposed to fill a canyon known as Smugglers Gulch with over 2 million cubic yards of dirt. The triple fence would then be extended across the filled gulch. In February 2004, the Coastal Commission of California determined that the Customs and Border Patrol had not demonstrated, among other things, that the project was consistent to ``maximize'' to the extent practicable with the policies of the California Coastal Management program, the State program approved under the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act. The Coastal Zone Management Act requires Federal agency activity within and outside the coastal zone that affects any land use, water or other natural resources in the coastal zone to be carried out in a manner that is consistent, to the maximum extent practicable, with the policies of an approved State management program. However, as stringent as these requirements are, if a Federal court finds a Federal activity to be inconsistent with an improved State program, the Secretary determines that the compliance is unlikely to be achieved through mediation, the President may exempt from compliance the activity if the President determines that the activity is in the paramount interest of the United States. All the authority needed to build the barrier fence already exists in law. We can use laws and process that we have to get this fence built. There is no need for a blanket waiver to get any barrier constructed. On October 26 of 2004 the Coastal Commission staff met with the Customs and Border Patrol/Homeland Security. In that meeting the Customs and Border Patrol explained why they did not believe additional comments, other than those that had already been agreed upon, were necessary to bring the project into compliance with the applicable coastal policies. Customs and Border Patrol maintained that it still wanted to continue to work with the Coastal Commission on measures they had agreed to, and the Coastal Commission indicated their continued willingness to work with them, despite the overall disagreement with some of the project components such as the Smugglers Gulch fill. Coastal Commission informed Customs that in order to complete the Federal consistency review process, they would have to write a letter outlining their position. However, the Coastal Commission has not received any letter. So why are we trying to fix something that is working through the established process of law? I ask because the reach of this amendment is actually the border fence in San Diego. The proposed section 102 gives an unprecedented waiver and power to the Secretary of Homeland Security, not only for the border fence in San Diego but for any, any area. If enacted, the new 102 section would provide the Secretary of Homeland Security not only with the authority to waive all laws he determines necessary to ensure the expeditious construction of barriers and roads, but the requirement that the Secretary do so. As I mentioned, there is no evidence that such an extraordinary rejection of the rule of law is necessary in the first instance. Current law allows the DHS Secretary to waive the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act at the barrier, and this same provision was allowed to the Attorney General prior to the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. This provision has never, to date, been used in San Diego nor am I aware at any other time the authority has been used on the barrier fence. So the remedies are there; they are in the law. We forget in this debate that Mexico is the number one trading partner of California. It is the busiest border in the world for the legitimate transfer of people and commerce, and it is in the city and County of San Diego, and neither of those jurisdictions has asked for this draconian waiver. Neither has the State of California. Why would the Government of the United States of America, at a time when we are advocating the support and enforcement of law, why would the government now want to forbid the use of our own law to finish the fence? Not even the importance of securing the border can justify placing a government official above the law. As I mentioned, my colleagues ought to be wary of what is proposed here. It grants authority to waive all laws notwithstanding any other provision of the law. This section also says, notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no court shall have jurisdiction to hear a claim, to order any relief. How can we celebrate elections in Iraq and the honor of law when we in Congress are now asking that we waive all laws? Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 418 and I urge my colleagues to do the same. This bill is a misguided attempt to implement immigration reform under the guise of Homeland Security. This bill turns its back on a core principle that distinguishes America from other nations; that of being a safe haven for the tired, poor, and weak. The three specific policies that the bill addresses--the border fence, asylum provisions and driver's licenses standards--should have been vetted through the Committee process. Instead, this legislation has been rushed through the process--without hearings, without debate, and with very little input from the minority side of the aisle. This bill is being debated simply for politics instead of going through a legitimate legislative process, a fact that should be of concern to every Member, Republican and Democrat alike. Today I will offer an amendment. My amendment is simple and straight forward. It strikes section 102 from the ``REAL ID Act of 2005''. The proposed provision is trying to fIx a process that isn't broken. Section 102 gives an unprecedented waiver and power to the Secretary of Homeland Security. If passed, the Secretary has the sole discretion to wave all laws in order to expedite the construction of barriers and roads. There is no evidence that such an extraordinary rejection of the rule of law is necessary in the first instance. Current law already allows the DHS Secretary to waive the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act for the fence construction, the same exemption authorization that was allowed the Attorney General prior to creation of DHS. I look forward to the debate on my amendment. As I stated before, H.R. 418 is not a good bill and even more troubling is that we had no hearings or committee debate on it. We need frank and productive dialogue about the state of our immigration system and this bill does nothing to open up the discussion that this country needs to have. I do not support illegal immigration, but I do support the people who have come to our country and played by the rules in order to obtain their citizenship status. Not only do we have a responsibility and a proud history of protecting those who seek asylum in our country, which this bill is trying to thwart, we have a responsibility to legal immigrants who are contributing to our society to reduce the lengthy backlog to citizenship. Just earlier this week in meeting with some Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services employees, I was not surprised to learn that workers who were hired to help eliminate the backlog four years ago have been asked to stay on for another year. I do not often hear of temporary employees that are necessary for five years. I also learned that one of the reasons for the bureaucracy that legal immigrants experience is due to the antiquated state of technology the Bureau uses. As you can see, these are legitimate concerns about our immigration system that H.R. 418 does not address because it is a bill that has been brought up for political reasons, not legitimate policy reasons. The Republican Leadership of this Congress would do well to heed the President's comments to begin a dialogue on how to improve our immigration processes, and strengthen our national security, unlike the current legislation brought before us today. The effects of the REAL ID Act are not only bad for domestic politics, they are destructive for the peace process in the Middle East. The Act states: ``An alien who is an officer, official, representative, or spokesman of the Palestine Liberation Organization is considered, for purposes of this Act, to be engaged in a terrorist activity.'' In the first place, the United States already has a formal, congressionally approved mechanism for designating foreign terrorist organizations and imposing sanctions on them. The PLO is not on the U.S. list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations. This sneaky, backdoor attempt to override the responsibility of the State Department and the will of Congress is an incredibly stupid way to execute U.S. diplomacy. Second, we are now on the cusp of a historic moment in the Middle East peace process. The administration has promised that they will be actively engaged in the Middle East peace process. I find it hard to believe that they can be ``actively'' engaged in the peace process if the President will not be able to invite newly elected President Mahmoud Abbas to his Texas ranch, Camp David or any other location within the United States. President Abbas appears to be making considerable efforts in brokering peace, and the United States should be supporting his efforts. The effects of this provision will be a diplomatic nightmare and damage the United States's ability to be a fair broker in the peace process. This provision is an embarrassment to United States diplomacy--it is highly counterproductive to peace negotiations. Furthermore, I have concerns with the national driver's license standards in this bill. Current law already addresses this issue, but the regulations have been implemented since this bill was passed only 10 weeks ago. National driver's license standards in this bill create an unfunded mandate for States. Under this bill, at least 10 States would be forced to make significant changes to their systems, despite the fact that security standards can be attained without the interference this bill creates. State control of the licensing and identification process is crucial to maintaining public safety, bolstering security, reducing fraud, keeping costs of car insurance down and protecting privacy and Federal standards for such documents should be limited to those enumerated in the intelligence Reform Act of 2004. Additionally, the proponents of this bill do not want you to know that H.R. 418 would not have prevented 9/11 hijackers from obtaining a driver's license or ID. The breach of our security was a result of the hijackers having been issued legal visas to come to the United States, which many of them used to apply for driver's licenses and identification cards. Does H.R. 418 seek to address the root of the problem here? No, obviously not. Again, this bill is political posturing under the guise of national security. Instead of debating H.R. 418, the House of Representatives should be focused on ensuring the successful enactment of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 and working on comprehensively reforming our immigration system so that immigration is legal, safe, orderly, and reflective of the needs of American families, businesses, and national security. Leadership should be ashamed to have brought a bill like this that will affect our environment, our citizens, and people from all around the world to the Floor in such a manner. I can not support the process nor the actual policy this bill proposes and I urge my colleagues vote no on H.R. 418.

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I have been watching this debate all morning, and I am really concerned about what is happening here on the floor of the House of Representatives. I have never heard so much misstatement of fact about a piece of legislation that is very important. The problem is, this legislation never had a hearing in committee, never had public review. We have never looked at the language; I doubt that any Members have read the bill in its entirety. That is not what this House is all about, because this law is a very, very serious law, and it is going to affect people's lives. I have heard statements here on the floor that the recommendations in this bill are in the 9/11 Commission. Let me give an example. Section 102, which deals with the border fence, the commission never even mentioned the border fence. Why? Because it is not a problem. We have been building it. What we have run into is a couple of environmental snags. So what does this bill do? It says okay, waive all that. Waive the law. This is a precedent that has never been done before in the United States Congress. Waive all laws, whether those laws pertain to Indian burial grounds, whether they are labor laws, discrimination laws, small business laws, environmental laws. We will just waive them. And guess what, no court, as it says, ``no court shall have jurisdiction.'' What kind of a measure is this? Do we just run into problems and we come to the floor of Congress and say, just get rid of the law? Here is a country that celebrated the tearing down of the Berlin Wall, a country that celebrated the elections in Iraq so people will have the rule of law; and then when we have the rule of law, we just waive it. There was no request from the State of California for this bill. Mexico, our biggest trade partner, nothing like this; and what we are saying to the world is, do not worry, we are just going to cram through everything and forget the law. This is wrong, and I am going to have an amendment on the floor tomorrow to repeal it. I hope everyone votes for it.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Arnold R. Fontes, who is retiring after 34 years as the San Benito County Assessor. His continuous re-election for over three decades speaks volumes for his ability and for the trust the people of this county placed in him. Mr. Fontes was raised in San Benito County and attended local schools. He joined the R.O.T.C. and graduated in 1955 from the University of Santa Clara with a degree in Business Administration, majoring in accounting. He served in Germany as an Army Artillery Officer, and met his wife, Helga, while stationed there. Upon returning to the United States he was employed by McCormick Selph as their Accounting Manager, and then with Protective Papers as Plant Manager and Controller. On September 1, 1970 Mr. Fontes was appointed Assessor of San Benito County, and ran unopposed for eight consecutive terms. Arnold Fontes played a significant role in the community during those years. His activities include 31 years with the Boy Scouts of America, serving as District Chairman and as Vice President of Special Assignments of the Monterey Bay Area Council. He was President of the California Assessors' Association in 1982 and Treasurer from 1983 to 2000. He was a member of the San Benito Chamber of Commerce for 35 years, including Director from 1972 to 1974. During his 32 years with the Hollister Rotary Club he served as President from 1979 to 1980, and received the Paul Harris Fellowship from the Rotary Foundation of Rotary International. Currently, Mr. Fontes serves as Treasurer for the Community Foundation for San Benito County. Mr. Speaker, I applaud Arnold Fontes's many accomplishments, and commend him for his tremendous devotion to his community. I join all of San Benito County in honoring this truly remarkable man for his lifelong achievements.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today in strong opposition to H. Con. Res. 36. It is a standard practice for institutions of higher learning to include a non-discrimination policy as part of their mission. These policies affirm that they do not tolerate discrimination on any number of issues: race, sex, religion, age, disability, social class, and sexual orientation. These non-discrimination policies were created so that all people in our country have the opportunity to be an equal and respected member of higher education communities. Unfortunately the military has established a discriminatory policy, Don't Ask Don't Tell. This policy unfairly excludes homosexuals from military service on the basis of their sexual orientation alone. For example, numerous military linguists who are critically needed in the Global War on Terrorism have been discharged under Don't Ask Don't Tell. Supporters of H. Con. Res. 36 say that denying military recruiters access to college campuses is a national security threat, but they are completely missing the big picture. The real national security threat is the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy that forces our military to discharge gay servicemen and servicewomen regardless of their job performance. I strongly believe that the non-discrimination policies of colleges and universities should be respected and I urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution.

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. It may seem peculiar, but, frankly, I think that the military does not need this resolution. It is not broken out there. They are having the ability to recruit. Even despite the negative news from Iraq, the recruitment numbers are up for all the services. What this resolution does is sort of breaks this feeling in America that democracy allows divergence of opinion and that the people that own the real estate should have a voice in who can visit that real estate. We do not have any nationally owned universities, yet this resolution requires equal access for all military recruiters at institutions of higher education. I think we are getting into a really slippery area here because you are going to create within those campuses huge debates that students are going to say, we don't like this stuff being jammed down our throats. We and the faculty and the trustees of a university ought to be able to decide who can visit our campus, as they do in all other things. For example, here in Washington, D.C., Catholic University does not allow pro-abortionist recruiters to come and talk on the campus, and here you are going to require, regardless of what the issue should be, that military recruiters have to be allowed on campus. I think it is a very slippery slope. I do not think we need to go there, because the recruitment numbers are not down. I think the military has historically stood on its own feet to do very well in recruiting without getting Congress involved mandating that they have to be on campuses. I think you are going to have a negative reaction. I would urge Congress very carefully to think about this and to vote ``no'' until we get a better thought on how we want to mandate democracy in this country.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 56, ``Commending the Palestinian people for conducting a free and fair presidential election on January 9, 2005.'' I find a quote from Harry Emerson Fosdick appropriate for talking about the historic presidential elections in Palestine: ``Democracy is based upon the conviction that there are extraordinary possibilities in ordinary people.'' Ordinary Palestinians took extraordinary steps on January 9th and voted for a presidential candidate; this was only the second time in their history that Palestinians have had the opportunity to exercise the right to vote. All Palestinians must seize the opportunity to dedicate themselves to the advancement of peace and prosperity. This historic window of opportunity begs for the dedication and commitment of all parties who desire peace in the Middle East. I urge the new Secretary of State to be a fair and balanced broker in any future dialogue and to work tirelessly for a permanent peace.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. John L. Freitas, who is retiring after 18 years as Executive Director of the Carmel Foundation in Carmel, California. The Carmel Foundation was established in 1950 with the purpose of providing ``. . . for the residence, health, care and good living and the welfare and well being of persons in and about Carmel who are advanced in years and not otherwise sufficiently cared for.'' Under John's direction, the foundation procured vehicles to provide the residents and members with the independence that mobility affords. Facilities were outfitted with fixtures and appliances designed for both able and disabled people. More than fifty classes and programs were made available to enrich the lives of the members. A new computer learning center was added and became so popular that one thousand members graduated from its classes in the first 5 years, proving John's faith in the interest and ability of these seniors to learn difficult new skills. John Freitas' strong sense of community and fine balance with his board made it possible for the Carmel Foundation to continue to add enrichment programs. In-home supportive services, assistance with accounting, home safety checks, a weekend meal program, parties and potlucks are just a few of the elements that enhance their members' quality of life and ensure a loyal following. This loyalty flows over to the employees, who can see every day that what they do makes a tangible difference in the lives of all the people. Mr. Speaker, I applaud John Freitas' many accomplishments, and commend him for the tremendous amount of personal time, thought, and dedication he put into this project. I join the Carmel community in honoring this truly remarkable man for all of his lifelong achievements.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Community Housing Improvement Systems and Planning Association, Inc., affectionately called CHISPA, on the occasion of its 25th anniversary. CHISPA is a nonprofit 501 (c)3 Community-based Housing Development Organization, whose California housing projects have served Monterey County's lowest- income population for 25 years, and is the largest private nonprofit housing developer in the area. CHISPA's Self-Help program allows participants to become homeowners through building their houses themselves. Since 1990, CHISPA's Self- Help program has built 483 homes for approximately 2,560 people in Monterey County alone. This laudable program allows large low-income families to build their own homes with three to four bedrooms, double car garages, vaulted ceilings, landscaped front and back yards, sprinkler systems, and oak cabinets. Working 40 hours per week under the guidance of a construction supervisor, families are able to realize their dream home. Another worthy CHISPA program is the Moderate Income Housing program in which first-time home buyers receive financial assistance. Beneficiaries of this program include city employees, entry-level professionals, and teachers. CHISPA Housing and Management, Inc., CHMI, Housing and Maintenance Specialists ensure that houses are of the highest quality by overseeing all construction activities. Program participants learn both construction and maintenance techniques, in addition to valuable management skills. CHISPA contributes to social well-being not only by enabling families to construct beautiful homes, but also by providing participants with a deeper sense of community. Mr. Speaker, I applaud CHISPA's many accomplishments, and commend them for the tremendous effort they dedicate to enabling families to own their own home. I join the entire community in honoring this truly remarkable organization for its achievements in making the American Dream a reality for so many of our citizens.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Monterey County's new Emergency Services Center. This state-of-the-art essential services facility houses the County Emergency Operations Center (EOC) and Office of Emergency Services, as well as the consolidated 9-1-1 Dispatch Center, which serves public safety agencies and virtually all 420,000 residents of Monterey County. The need for this facility and its coordinated, integrated approach to emergency and communications services was starkly highlighted during the floods that devastated the county in 1995. Harry Robins, Emergency Services Manager, identified the necessary improvements in planning, budgeting, fiscal constraints, design, construction and installation of equipment, never wavering in his commitment to the vision of what this facility should be, and what it would mean to the people of Monterey County. Joining the county mid-stream in this planning effort was Emergency Communications Director Lynn Diebold, who solidified community backing and obtained fiscal support from every city and public safety agency served by the unique thirty-year partnership known as ``County Comm''. The final piece of the support and funding puzzle was achieved when I was able to secure approval for a HUD technology grant of nearly one million dollars. This funding ensured that the facility would be properly equipped to handle the day-to-day calls for police, fire and emergency medical calls for service, as well as improved the county's ability to respond regionally, with all local and State agencies, during any wildland fire, flood, earthquake or man-made disaster. These Federal grant funds were used to purchase essential telecommunications equipment and planning expertise, critical to meeting the joint missions of Emergency Services and Emergency Communications. The County Board of Supervisors, City Mayors and Councils, Fire District Boards and public safety organizations throughout the county are justifiably proud of their partnership with each other and the Federal government on this important regional project. Board of Supervisors Chair Lou Calcagno remarked at the official opening in August 2004, that he was ``particularly pleased that in these challenging fiscal times, this facility was built on time, on budget and is 100 percent paid for.'' He added, ``With no financing or bonds to pay off, this project is a testament to the good planning and hard work of county staff and the support and financial participation of our partner cities and Federal government''. City of Monterey Mayor, Dan Albert, who serves as the Chair of the Emergency Communications Policy Advisory Council, acknowledged the dedication and hard work of the 911 dispatchers and staff who handle over 600,000 911 and non-emergency telephone calls and more than 500,000 dispatch incidents annually. Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to be able to do my part in helping secure funding for this project. I join my colleagues in celebrating the opening of this building that has so many significant benefits to the county, and in thanking all those who work here for their commitment to the welfare of their fellow citizens.