The Record endorses Lautenberg

Is Lautenberg a Progressive? (0.00 / 0)

---

by: DSWright @ Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 19:23:25 PM UTC

this is bizarre (0.00 / 0)

"There's no evidence that a fence works. There is evidence that it frankly represents an unfortunate attitude in this country." - Rob Andrews

Then why did Andrews vote for a 700 mile fence along the Mexican border in 2006? And if Lautenberg thinks it's a good idea in some parts, why did he vote against it?

What the heck is going on here?

---

by: Juan Melli @ Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 19:46:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Andrews full statement (0.00 / 0)

"[Andrews]: I don't think we should build a fence. I think it doesn't work. It's a waste of money. On one occasion I voted for a piece of legislation that had a fence in it - the reason I did is that it had money for port security that would protect New Jersey and the other ports, but I think the evidence is clear that a fence is wasteful and ineffective and I do not support it."

Lautenberg may have voted against for different reasons as well - but he clearly SUPPORTS a FENCE.

---

by: DSWright @ Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 21:03:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

help me (4.00 / 1)

Here's the text of the legislation. I read it and can't find anything about funding port security. Can someone point me to that?

Secure Fence Act of 2006 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)

--H.R.6061--

H.R.6061

One Hundred Ninth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the third day of January, two thousand and six

An Act

To establish operational control over the international land and maritime borders of the United States.

     Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

     This Act may be cited as the `Secure Fence Act of 2006'.

SEC. 2. ACHIEVING OPERATIONAL CONTROL ON THE BORDER.

     (a) In General- Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall take all actions the Secretary determines necessary and appropriate to achieve and maintain operational control over the entire international land and maritime borders of the United States, to include the following--

           (1) systematic surveillance of the international land and maritime borders of the United States through more effective use of personnel and technology, such as unmanned aerial vehicles, ground-based sensors, satellites, radar coverage, and cameras; and

           (2) physical infrastructure enhancements to prevent unlawful entry by aliens into the United States and facilitate access to the international land and maritime borders by United States Customs and Border Protection, such as additional checkpoints, all weather access roads, and vehicle barriers.

     (b) Operational Control Defined- In this section, the term `operational control' means the prevention of all unlawful entries into the United States, including entries by terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband.

     (c) Report- Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act and annually thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on the progress made toward achieving and maintaining operational control over the entire international land and maritime borders of the United States in accordance with this section.

SEC. 3. CONSTRUCTION OF FENCING AND SECURITY IMPROVEMENTS IN BORDER AREA FROM PACIFIC OCEAN TO GULF OF MEXICO.

     Section 102(b) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-208; 8 U.S.C. 1103 note) is amended--

           (1) in the subsection heading by striking `Near San Diego, California'; and

           (2) by amending paragraph (1) to read as follows:

           `(1) SECURITY FEATURES-

                 `(A) REINFORCED FENCING- In carrying out subsection (a), the Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide for least 2 layers of reinforced fencing, the installation of additional physical barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors--

                       `(i) extending from 10 miles west of the Tecate, California, port of entry to 10 miles east of the Tecate, California, port of entry;

                       `(ii) extending from 10 miles west of the Calexico, California, port of entry to 5 miles east of the Douglas, Arizona, port of entry;

                       `(iii) extending from 5 miles west of the Columbus, New Mexico, port of entry to 10 miles east of El Paso, Texas;

                       `(iv) extending from 5 miles northwest of the Del Rio, Texas, port of entry to 5 miles southeast of the Eagle Pass, Texas, port of entry; and

                       `(v) extending 15 miles northwest of the Laredo, Texas, port of entry to the Brownsville, Texas, port of entry.

                 `(B) PRIORITY AREAS- With respect to the border described--

                       `(i) in subparagraph (A)(ii), the Secretary shall ensure that an interlocking surveillance camera system is installed along such area by May 30, 2007, and that fence construction is completed by May 30, 2008; and

                       `(ii) in subparagraph (A)(v), the Secretary shall ensure that fence construction from 15 miles northwest of the Laredo, Texas, port of entry to 15 southeast of the Laredo, Texas, port of entry is completed by December 31, 2008.

                 `(C) EXCEPTION- If the topography of a specific area has an elevation grade that exceeds 10 percent, the Secretary may use other means to secure such area, including the use of surveillance and barrier tools.'.

SEC. 4. NORTHERN BORDER STUDY.

     (a) In General- The Secretary of Homeland Security shall conduct a study on the feasibility of a state of-the-art infrastructure security system along the northern international land and maritime border of the United States and shall include in the study--

           (1) the necessity of implementing such a system;

           (2) the feasibility of implementing such a system; and

           (3) the economic impact implementing such a system will have along the northern border.

     (b) Report- Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate a report that contains the results of the study conducted under subsection (a).

SEC. 5. EVALUATION AND REPORT RELATING TO CUSTOMS AUTHORITY TO STOP CERTAIN FLEEING VEHICLES.

     (a) Evaluation- Not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall--

           (1) evaluate the authority of personnel of United States Customs and Border Protection to stop vehicles that enter the United States illegally and refuse to stop when ordered to do so by such personnel, compare such Customs authority with the authority of the Coast Guard to stop vessels under section 637 of title 14, United States Code, and make an assessment as to whether such Customs authority should be expanded;

           (2) review the equipment and technology available to United States Customs and Border Protection personnel to stop vehicles described in paragraph (1) and make an assessment as to whether or not better equipment or technology is available or should be developed; and

           (3) evaluate the training provided to United States Customs and Border Protection personnel to stop vehicles described in paragraph (1).

     (b) Report- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate a report that contains the results of the evaluation conducted under subsection (a).

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.

---

by: Juan Melli @ Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 21:21:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think the Record nailed it (0.00 / 0)

To primary an incumbent there really should be a compelling reason to have the incumbent replaced, either a failing in the incumbent or a great aspect of the challenger.

In this case neither exists, so I go with the incumbent.  No reflection on Andrews merits, just that he hasn't made the case for ousting Lautenberg.

---

by: huntsu @ Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 20:37:29 PM UTC

Andrews pandering at his best (0.00 / 0)

this is hysterical. Andrews was the one that actually voted to install a fence along the US - Mexican border -- NOT Lautenberg (who voted NO when the issue was before the Senate).  But that doesn't stop Andrews from pandering about the issue.  Everyone is free to flip-flop.  I'm sure if he told "the people" in Perth Amboy or the North Ward in Newark that he actually voted for the fence before he was against it -- they wouldn't appreciate his lack of candor.

---

by: FlamingModerate @ Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 20:59:27 PM UTC

I am PISSED at Lautenberg (4.00 / 2)

I like Lautenberg, I really do. BUT he stuck his nose into our local politics AGAIN. The Real Bergen Democrats asked him, pleaded with him, to just keep his name out of the local races. Today he distributed door hangers with his name along with all of the BCDO candidates.

Frank, you have lost some votes in Englewood.

---

by: NJ Liberal @ Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 22:00:44 PM UTC

Genuine question - are these really Lautenberg campaign made and distributed? (0.00 / 0)

As far as the yard signs I see around the county, the signs in the Lautenberg campaign's design and font say merely "Lautenberg" or more commonly "Lautenberg Rothman," while the signs that are BCDO-made have the entire BCDO slate, from Lautenberg and Rothman on down through the clerk and freeholder races.

Go, Real Bergen Democrats!  

---

by: Steven Goldstein, Garden State Equality chair @ Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:10:56 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Are you sure that it was him? (0.00 / 0)

Senators rarely distribute their own door hangers.  It was most likely one of Ferriero's lackeys.  Once Lautenberg and Rothman chose to use the RBD to bluff their way onto the BCDO line, nothing was going to prevent those door hangers from going out.

The fact of the matter is that the RBD should not have allowed Lautenberg and Rothman to use them the way that they did.  They (RBD) should have forced them (L & R) to make a choice with the knowledge that if they run on the BCDO line, Andrews will be offered the RBD line and a primary challenger would be recruited to run against Rothman.

Unfortunately, the RBD folks are too decent to play these kinds of games and because of that, it will take them a lot longer to achieve their goals.  But at the same time, I don't think that it is right to be upset at Lautenberg for playing the game the way that it has to be played.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:21:08 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

OK, I should have been (0.00 / 0)

more specific. The door hangers were, in fact, produced by BCDO. I really don't care. Lautenberg carries a big enough stick that he could have instructed BCDO to not use his name in association with local Englewood races.

We produced several flyers and mailers for our RBD candidates and we included Lautenberg and Rothman. We (local people) paid for this out of our own pockets. Now I'm regretting having done that.

All that said, I'm having (sort of) positive feelings about a big RBD victory tomorrow.

---

by: NJ Liberal @ Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 13:29:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

We were told by (0.00 / 0)

someone involved with the Rothman/Lautenberg camp that they "needed Joe's money".  Not something that went over well with my running mate Carol Skiba......  Not sure if Lautenberg or Rothman know that their staff is saying things like that and if they are true......

I am seeing Column 4 signs in Edgewater for Lautenberg.  I got literature for Lautenberg that has the BCDO candidates on it.    

We purposely stayed out of the Senate and Congressional races and did not bracket with Andrews or any Senate or Congressional candidate. It is a shame, they let their names be used that way.  I did notice at the Asian American Festival at the Teaneck Armory yesterday that they had BCDO signs hidden behind their Rothman Lautenberg signs.  Since Ganz and McPherson were not there and the Bergenfield Real Bergen Dems were as well as Carol Skiba, Gail Frasco and I, they discreetly hid their BCDO signs behind the Lautenberg ones while the governor was doing his photo ops.

I better not get a robo-call from either Lautenberg or Rothman.  They should really rethink their allegiance to Mr. Ferriero, whether he's got $$$ or not.  

He won't be able to raise much more if he winds up in the slammer. Like my mom told me when I was little - you have to be very careful who your friends are.  It DOES matter.

One Vote.  Yours.  It really does matter.

---

by: carolh @ Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 13:52:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

And how about Mr. Wannabe.. (0.00 / 0)

Michael Wildes? Talk about being carful of who your friends are.

By the way, our campaign lit also included you, and all the RBD candidates. Keep fighting the good fight.

I'm told we'll be getting some real GOTV support tonight and tomorrow from RBD. That's great news!

---

by: NJ Liberal @ Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 17:25:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The lit I got that was Paid For (0.00 / 0)

by Frank Lautenberg for Senate has the BCDO folks on it - and Dennis Shulman is NOT on it. The lit I get from Dennis Shulman is just from him.  He was at the Asian American Festival yesterday as well.  

One Vote.  Yours.  It really does matter.

---

by: carolh @ Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 13:55:54 PM UTC