Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be modified in the form at the desk. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Perhaps I can elucidate. The point of adding that particular provision…
Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be modified in the form at the desk.
Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Perhaps I can elucidate. The point of adding that particular provision is that, given the crush of time, I am a little bit concerned that we did not cover everything. There is no purpose here to include Davis-Bacon or employment or employee things. This is strictly an effort to remove impediments to the construction of this security fence.
If the gentleman will yield further, as they relate to the fence, that is my intention.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to secure our southern border immediately south of San Diego by completing the security fence that this Congress authorized and that President Clinton signed back in September of 1996. The rationale for this is very straightforward. Construction of this fence reduces illegal immigration. The Border Patrol has told us that the construction of the fence to date has reduced illegal immigration in that area by 80 percent.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) just 5 minutes ago talked about an integrated border security system that accomplishes just that, and this fence is part of that. Construction of the fence serves to protect our country from potential terrorist activity.
I have a letter from the Secretary of the Navy here to our good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), that I will enter into the Record that highlights exactly that point relative to the naval base 4 miles north of the site in question.
Construction of this fence is part of an integrated border security system identified in the 9/11 Commission report as a priority. I am not making this stuff up. This is part of an integrated border security system that this country has previously authorized that has been bogged down for 8 years in getting completed.
I regret, I truly do regret, the impact this may have on environmental or cultural resources, but we need to make a choice. The votes we post will be clear: Are we for protecting this country by completing this fence, or are we not?
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, before I yield to my good friend from San Diego, I want to make a point that the exemptions offered in section C of my amendment shall also incorporate section 102(c) of title I, subtitle A of the 1997 Omnibus Appropriations Act, that is Public Law 104-208, in its entirety.
I will say there is a meeting that is going to take place in 2 weeks. It will be the sixteenth meeting this year alone trying to move this project forward. I think the meetings now take place so they can schedule more meetings. We need to get this finished.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 90 seconds to my friend, the gentleman from San Diego, California (Mr. Hunter).
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds.
The original authorization to build this fence gave the Attorney General the opportunity to waive all of these things the previous speaker voted for. You cannot have it both ways. You are either for protecting this country or you are not.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Two speakers go, we had someone on that side talking about negotiations, that there are negotiations pending. The fact of the matter is negotiations have been going on for 6 years, and we are no closer to a solution. We had a speaker just previous from Oregon stand up and make an argument for doing nothing. I am sorry, I do not understand that.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to extend the debate time on each side for 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from San Diego, California (Mr. Cunningham).
Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules and the champion in California on immigration issues and protecting our country.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)