Posted on 09/14/2007 8:48:57 AM PDT by Calpernia
I didn’t say I worked for the DoD, I said I work with the DoD. I also never said what I originally posted about Hunter (re: Cunningham, etc.) was true. See, I can parse too. However, the fence information is fact.
As a member of DOD, what is your motive for policing a message forum?
Yes, Congress withheld $950M of the $1.2B until the Appropriations Committee approved the plans for the fence.
My thread wasn’t about the fence. That is what happens when you hijack a thread.
In what capacity do you work with the DOD since you brought it up?
So should we call you the Amazing Karnak now?
Good question.
Gee, I worked with the DOD for 9 years, genius. And I know very well expensive black ops programs are. And that is no different on the NSA side of things.
I already told you, the Secure Fence Act superseded the directives of the previous border language in the appropriations bill. If it did not, explain why they are building dual fence with a border patrol road as we speak. That was not in the Omnibus approprations bill 5441. this is the text of 5441 relating to borders:
BORDER SECURITY FENCING, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND TECHNOLOGY
For expenses for customs and border protection fencing, infrastructure, and technology, $1,187,565,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, That of the amount provided under this heading, $1,159,200,000 is designated as described in section 520 of this Act: Provided further, That of the amount provided under this heading, $950,000,000 shall not be obligated until the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives receive and approve a plan for expenditure, prepared by the Secretary of Homeland Security and submitted within 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act, to establish a security barrier along the border of the United States of fencing and vehicle barriers, where practicable, and other forms of tactical infrastructure and technology, that—
(1) defines activities, milestones, and costs for implementing the program;
(2) demonstrates how activities will further the goals and objectives of the Secure Border Initiative (SBI), as defined in the SBI multi-year strategic plan;
(3) identifies funding and the organization staffing (including full-time equivalents, contractors, and detailees) requirements by activity;
(4) reports on costs incurred, the activities completed, and the progress made by the program in terms of obtaining operational control of the entire border of the United States;
(5) includes a certification by the Chief Procurement Officer of the Department of Homeland Security that procedures to prevent conflicts of interest between the prime integrator and major subcontractors are established and a certification by the Chief Information Officer of the Department of Homeland Security that an independent verification and validation agent is currently under contract for the project;
(6) complies with all applicable acquisition rules, requirements, guidelines, and best systems acquisition management practices of the Federal Government;
(7) complies with the capital planning and investment control review requirements established by the Office of Management and Budget, including Circular A-11, part 7;
(8) is reviewed and approved by the Department of Homeland Security Investment Review Board, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Office of Management and Budget; and
(9) is reviewed by the Government Accountability Office.
Not a word about the double fence with a BP road. But keep right on pretending.
Why...are you paranoid? : ) No, I am not policing the site, just pointing out to others how disengenuous you are in saying this is an investigative thread.
“It was part of a deal with Trent Lott”
‘Nough said.
Okay...genius...can you read that it says that $950M is withheld until plans are approved. It says it right in your post. That is the ONLY funding that has been approved, no other funding has been approved for the fence...PERIOD.
Matter of fact, since you are now presenting yourself in an official type position, and you are accusing me of things, I’m taking major issue with your posting.
see 107. Raving nut seems to think that laws that supersede other laws must be re-appropriated. Little nutter apparently does not realize that it happens all the time.
What is your position with/in/on/affiliation with DOD please.
I just told you, the SECURE FENCE ACT SUPERSEDES THE LANGUAGE IN THE APPROPRIATIONS BILL. IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME. My NSA example was a perfect demonstration of it. Though you think in all of your brilliance that it costs nothing to embark on a new program of foreign surveillance.
Also, I never said I worked in any "official" capacity, I thought the purpose of screen names on a forum was to be anonymous, so I am allowed to be vague and I will. And finally, pissant is still wrong, nothing in Hunter's bill addresses funding...period...end of discussion.
You identified yourself as being with the DOD. Explain that so there is no misunderstanding.
Bite me...I don’t owe you an explanation of anything. I work WITH the DoD and have clarified that it is not in a official capacity, that is all you need to understand. You don’t see me demanding to know where you work or live.
Secure Fence Act of 2006:IT DOESN'T AND THEREFORE, YOU ARE WRONG.Sec. 1: Short Title
Sec. 2: Achieving Operation Control on the Border
Requires DHS Secretary, within 18 months of enactment, to take all actions he determines are appropriate and necessary to achieve and maintain operation control over land and maritime borders, including:
systematic surveillance through more effective use of personnel & technology; and physical infrastructure enhancements such as additional checkpoints, roads and barriers; "Operational control" means the prevention of all unlawful entries into the U.S., including entries by terrorists, unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband.
Requires DHS Secretary, within one year of enactment and annually thereafter, to submit a report to Congress on progress made toward achieving this goal.
Sec. 3: Construction of Fencing and Security Improvements in Border Area from Pacific Ocean to Gulf of Mexico
Amends section 102(b) of IIRIRA (section on improvement of barriers at the border) by striking the words "near San Diego" (IIRIRA § 102(b) dealt only with construction of fencing and roads in the border area near San Diego), and by specifying that the DHS Secretary must provide for at least 2 layers of reinforced fencing, additional physical barriers, roads, lighting, cameras and sensors. Such improvements must extend from:
10 miles west of the Tecate, CA POE to 10 miles east of same; 10 miles west of the Calexico, CA POE to 5 miles east of the Douglas, AZ POE; 5 miles west of the Columbus, NM POE to 10 miles east of El Paso, TX; 5 miles northwest of the Del Rio, TX POE to 5 miles southeast of the Eagle Pass, TX POE; and 15 miles northwest of the Laredo, TX POE to the Brownsville, TX POE. With respect to the Calexico area, outlined above, the DHS Secretary must install an interlocking surveillance camera along such area by May 30, 2007 and must complete fence installation in this sector by May 30, 2008.
With respect to the Laredo area, outlined above, the DHS Secretary must ensure that fence construction from 15 miles northwest of the Laredo, TX POE to 15 miles southeast of the Laredo, TX POE is completed by December 31, 2008. If the topography of a specific area has an elevation grade of 10 % or higher, the Secretary may use other means to secure the area.
Sec. 4: Northern Border Study
This section requires the DHS Secretary to conduct a study on the construction of a state-of-the-art barrier system along the northern international land and maritime border, including a discussion of both the necessity and feasibility of constructing such a system, and must report his findings to Congress within one year of enactment.
Sec. 5: Evaluation and Report Relating to Customs Authority to Stop Certain Fleeing Vehicles
Section 5 requires the DHS Secretary, within 30 days of enactment, to:
evaluate the authority of CBP personnel to stop vehicles that enter the U.S. unlawfully or that refuse to stop when ordered to do so, and compare such CBP authority with that of the Coast Guard to stop vessels under 14 USC, section 637, assessing whether such CBP authority should be expanded.
review the equipment and technology available to CBP personnel to stop the vehicles described above and assess whether better equipment & technology is available or should be developed.
evaluate the training provided to CBP personnel to stop vehicles as described above. The Secretary must submit a report to Congress within 60 days of enactment that contains the results of the evaluation described above.
No it supersedes it. Otherwise Chertoff would just say “show me the money, Duncan”.
July 1, 2007, Fox News Sunday:
Chris Wallace: Congress passed the Secure Fence Act in October of last year, mandating 700 miles of new fence along the SW border. Now congressman Duncan Hunter who comes from that part of the world, comes from San Diego, says that in fact, since that time in 8 months, the government has only built 13 miles of new fencing. Is that true sir?
Chertoff: Well what we’ve done, what we are working on, that we will complete by september is we’ll be up to 140 miles or 150 miles of fencing. As anybody who has ever built a fence or a wall knows Chris, you don’t build it one mile at a time. You take a chunk, like for example the 35 miles in the Barry Goldwater range in Arizona, you have to level the ground, you have to put a foundation in, you have to drive in the pillars, then you put the fencing in. In that case for instance, we are going to go from a handful of miles to 35 miles within a couple of months. We are on track to get about 370 miles done by the end of 08.
Once again, game set and match. Nowhere have the dems committees approved 370 miles of Hunter fence. Only the Secure Fence Act has done that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.