by David Safier
After reading comments on my Dear Representative Barber post stating incorrectly that Barber hadn't explained his civil contempt vote against Attorney General Holder, I posted his Media Release explaining his vote. I've also received comments saying Barber hasn't explained his vote for letting the Border Patrol skirt some environmental laws. In fact, Barber put out a Media Release about that vote June 19, which you can read below the fold. So far as I know, he has not published any other comments on the bill, though he has been meeting with constituents around the area discussing his recent votes.
NEWS RELEASE
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
U.S. REP. RON BARBER VOTES TO IMPROVE BORDER SECURITY
Newest member of Congress crosses party lines to support bill that will increase Border Patrol ability to pursue smugglers along US-Mexico Border
WASHINGTON –U.S. Rep. Ron Barber, shortly after he was sworn into office, today voted for legislation that would give the U.S. Border Patrol increased authority to pursue smugglers who operate on land along the U.S.-Mexico Border.
“Border security is the No. 1 priority for the people who live and work along our nation’s southern border,” Barber said today. “There is no doubt that this bill will make our borders more secure. But this legislation is far from perfect and I will work to make changes as it moves through the process.”
The National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act was included in The Conservation and Economic Growth Act which passed on a 232-to-188 vote. Joining Barber in voting to pass the bill were Arizona Reps. Jeff Flake, Paul Gosar, Trent Franks, Ben Quayle and David Schweikert.
Although Barber voted to pass the bill, he earlier voted against a motion that prohibited House members from voting on additional amendments to the bill.
The bill included an amendment offered by Rep. Bob Bishop of Utah that would reduce the number of exemptions from environmental and land use laws provided to the Homeland Security Department to conduct border security activities within 100 miles of the border.
The amendment would require Homeland Security to continue observing provisions of the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. It also includes language to clarify that the bill does not infringe on the existing rights of tribal government nor would it prohibit the use of lands for legally authorized purposes, such as hunting, grazing or mining.
The bill, as now written, creates a 100-mile operational control zone along the northern and southern land borders of the United States to be under the control of the Department of Homeland Security. The bill now goes to the Senate.
Gary Thrasher, a veterinarian and prominent Southern Arizona rancher, supported passage of the bill and testified in favor of it last year in a hearing before the House Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands.
“This shows that Ron is his own man,” Thrasher said today. “It takes a lot of guts to buck the system. When he votes, Ron is thinking of his constituents and working to make sure our border is secure.”
Discover more from Blog for Arizona
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Thanks, Dave. I had not seen this release. Reading it helps me to better understand his vote, but some of the other comments I have seen from others makes me wonder why the amendment was deemed necessary. It is also heartening to know that Barber is out on the hustings explaining the basis for his vote. I stand by my comments about his release on the civil contempt citation, however, and look forward to a healthy debate between him and Heinz.
What is DISHEARTENING is to read comments on this blog and others bashing “Blue Dog Democrats.” Have we learned nothing from the purge of moderates and the rabid taunts of “RINO!” coming out of the GOP? As Democrats, we should be doing all we can to broaden the base of our party, not narrow it. So-called “progressives” who are arrogant enough to claim that it is their right alone to define what constitutes a Democrat are engaging in both arrogance and political naivete. Regardless of who wins the Barber-Heinz primary, I am likely to disagree with some of their votes while backing the vast majority of votes they cast. Primary debates should be focused on a substantive discussion of issues and philosophies, but I am turned off to anyone who thinks they can win by spouting the “more Democrat than thou” line. We’ve had enough of that rhetoric from the likes of Jesse Kelly and Rick Santorum!
Barber is acting like the blue dog he is. He was the lesser of two evils when he was elected. Now we have a chance to elect a real Democrat in the primary. I am voting for Heinz as he aligns with the true liberal beliefs I was raised with.