The Texas Observer

A five-hour hearing on the border wall conducted by members of Congress at UT Brownsville today illustrated why we have a logjam in Congress over any kind of meaningful immigration reform.

The 7-person congressional panel featured a number of chairmen including U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva a Democrat from Arizona, and U.S. Rep. Madeleine Bordallo, a Democrat from Guam. The majority of the members were Democrats with the exception of soon to be ex-U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter a Republican from California and the architect of the Secure Fence Act of 2006 legislation and soon to be ex-U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo, a Republican from Colorado. Both Tancredo and Hunter are former presidential candidates who ran on an anti-immigration platform but failed to make a dent against Sen. John McCain, who holds a more moderate position on the subject.

Democrats on the panel seemed to agree the United States needed comprehensive immigration reform and that segments of a border wall would not solve U.S. immigration woes. Tancredo and Hunter repeatedly tried to argue that a border wall would significantly help stop illegal immigration. Hunter, especially seemed fixated on the double layered border fence in San Diego. He offered statistics that border arrests are down in San Diego but didn’t cite sources for them. Hunter’s district borders Tijuana in Baja California. Hunter painted a picture of apocalyptic lawlessness: hundreds of rapes, murders and “massive tons of cocaine being injected into the veins of American children” before the wall had been built.

But, people in Brownsville didn’t want to hear about San Diego. They wanted the congressional leaders to understand the uniqueness of the border culture in Texas.

The lecture hall was packed with border landowners, university students and business leaders from the border region. No supporters of the wall appeared to be present. “I would say that our community is united in opposition against the wall,” said Brownsville County Commissioner John Wood as he scanned the audience.

That opposition was evident in numerous testimonies from business people, landowners and academics including Dr. Juliet Garcia, President of the University of Texas at Brownsville. Dr. Garcia’s testimony illustrated the heavy handedness of Homeland Security and the short sightedness in trying to construct a wall through her campus by December 31, 2008. Garcia said that DHS’ plan was to leave an opening in the 18-foot fence that would funnel illegal activity to that point. That point however, would be right next to the library and campus classrooms. It would also be the same entrance that students would use to enter the university’s golf course.

The audience laughed in disbelief at DHS’ plan. “I could not sign the (DHS) waiver because it is my responsibility to protect the safety of our students,” she said.

Some of the more interesting testimony came from Ned Norris, chair of the Tohono O’odham tribe in Arizona. Norris said that much damage had already been done to ancestral burial grounds and the tribe’s sovereignty by Homeland Security’s heavy handed tactics. So far, DHS has already constructed vehicle barriers throughout the Tohono O’odham ancestral lands which range from the Arizona border near Tucson south into Mexico. Norris said subcontractors hired by Boeing, who is in charge of building the wall had ignored federal archaeological laws and destroyed burial grounds. “Imagine heavy machinery driving over your family graveyard,” he said. Norris said Homeland Security had never consulted with them on border security issues. “Their attitude is that we are federal land and they are the federal government and they can do whatever the hell they want.” Norris said that Secretary Michael Chertoff had avoided several invitations made by the tribe to visit. He also dodged them during several visits to Washington D.C.

‘We are tired of being tour guides for Congress,” said a frustrated Norris. “Probably the only visit we’d like to have right now is Chertoff, but he won’t come. He goes to the border to the East and the West of us but he never comes to out land.”

Every witness who testified before the panel said that Homeland Security had never consulted with them before suing them for access to their land to build the wall.These witnesses included local leaders, landowners, the Catholic Diocese, the UT Brownsville campus, the Texas Produce Association which represents hundreds of farmers and the Tohono O’odham tribe. Hunter and Tancredo did not seem to see a problem in Homeland Security’s tactics, however.

At the and of the day, Hunter said it was a successful hearing. “Well you thought you didn’t get your day in court, now you’ve gotten to talk about your issues,” he said.

But those testifying weren’t there just to go through the motions. They want action and they feel their day in court has yet to come.

Well, I wasn’t going to do it. But after chronicling the travails of Puddles/Panchito for several months, it seemed fitting to write an epilogue about the little Shih Tzu that brought down the mayor of a South Texas town.

After a 10-month tussle over custody of the lovable little yapper, the Gutierrez family finally emerged victorious yesterday. State District Judge Richard Terrell ruled in favor of the family after chastising both parties for behaving like idiots.

After all, Grace Saenz-Lopez—now the ex-mayor of Alice—gave up her political career for the pint-sized ball of fluff. She was also indicted along with her twin sister in an alleged plot to hide the dog from the Gutierrez family. The two still face criminal charges and will have their hearing next week. The whole affair became such a—ahem—doggone debacle that it made headlines in the New York Times and the nationally syndicated Mike and Juliet Show.

I’m glad it’s nearly over, because I’m running out of dog-related puns.

The question now is, can the ex-Mayor let sleeping dogs lie?

Creationism studies in Texas went back to square one Thursday. The nine-member Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board backed Commissioner Raymund Paredes’ recommendation to deny the Institute for Creation Research’s bid to teach creationism as science.

After Wednesday’s lengthy hearing and full day of testimony, board members voted that public testimony not be admitted today—proof, perhaps, that God is merciful.

The vote was quick and unanimous.  Joe Stafford, assistant commissioner for Academic Affairs and Research, read into the record a Texas Education Code statute about preventing public deception in the face of fraudulent or substandard college and university degrees. He also read from Texas Administrative Code rules 12a and 12d, which discuss the quality and content of curricula.

Dr. Henry Morris, CEO of the Institute for Creation Research, told the Observer that his school will appeal the decision within 45 days. Morris said the ICR may also take its case to the Texas Supreme Court.

A bid to teach creationism as science in Texas is facing extinction. Raymund Paredes, commissioner of the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, today recommended that the Institute for Creation Research not be allowed to offer a Masters of Science degree in Science Education.

The ICR teaches that the earth was created in a week and that it is 6,000 years old.

Paredes made his recommendation before the Coordinating Board’s Academic Excellence and Research Committee. On Thursday the 9-member Coordinating Board will meet to take a final vote on the Commissioner’s recommendation.

Three participants spoke in favor of ICR’s application: a radio announcer with a science background, a military officer, and a tax attorney. Seven folks spoke against authorizing ICR to grant degrees. Among them were several science teachers and two representatives of science education organizations: the Science Teacher’s Association of Texas and the Texas Academy of Science.

Commissioner Paredes said in a press release that he based his recommendation on two considerations: ICR failed to demonstrate that the proposed degree program meets acceptable standards of science and science education, and the proposed degree is inconsistent with Coordinating Board rules that require the accurate labeling or designation of programs.

Dr. Henry Morris, president of the ICR, told the Observer he was not surprised by Paredes’ recommendation. Morris said there has been an “intensity of resistance from the academic community toward creationism in the last year in Texas.” He cited the dismissal of Texas Education Agency employee Chris Comer, the upcoming review of TEKS and critical thinking standards for Texas schools, and the pro-creationism movie “Expelled” as topics that had generated media attention and public debate in the last year.

Morris said if the Board votes to uphold the Commissioner’s recommendation, the Institute will appeal the decision in the next 45 days. If the appeal is denied, Morris said, the Institute may take its case to the Texas Supreme Court. “We were denied the right to operate in California and we went through a lengthy and onerous court case before we won,” he said. “It’s an option that we will consider in Texas if we are denied.”

Morris said the real issue at hand is “whether science can tolerate a different presumption about the beginning point of creation.”

The ICR attorney said it was a question of freedom of speech and the Constitution that the Institute should be granted the authority to teach science in Texas.

Steven Schafersman, who testified against ICR at the hearing, said he thought Commissioner Paredes had made a “decisive and strong decision based on sound reasoning.”

“The ICR attorney said it was about fair play and free speech, but I disagree,” Schafersman said. “They have the right to teach whatever they want, but not the right to have the state grant them the authority to teach pseudoscience.”

There’s always home schooling…

The price of oil continues to skyrocket today with a barrel of crude going for $120. Remember back in the day when the media kept warning that oil would bypass the $100 a barrel ceiling? Yeah, well those days are long gone.

Leave aside whether the U.S. can ever wean itself off its dependence on foreign oil, how about simply curbing subsidies and other corporate welfare perks for oil companies? An army of high-paid oil and gas lobbyists know the best way to forestall action is to win the hearts (these can usually be located next to their campaign accounts) of politicians. Oil producers are doling out some of their record-breaking profits to fund the presidential race. The Center for Responsive Politics, a non-profit, runs a database called Oil Change International that tracks oil and gas contributions to the presidential candidates.

Republican candidate Senator John McCain is in the lead with $291,685, while Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton is close behind with $289,950 in contributions.

Democratic nominee Senator Barack Obama trails the two with $163,840 in oil and gas contributions.

The biggest recipient of oil and gas largess is former Republican presidential nominee Rudy Guliani who collected $659,158 in political contributions. The campaign contributions are current as of March 3, 2008, according to the database.

Oil giant Exxon Mobil is not taking any chances in its lobbying and has given contributions to all three candidates. Long a target for environmentalists, Exxon has given the most, $23,550, to Senator Obama and the least to Senator McCain with just $7,950. Senator Clinton received $15,700.

Hmmmm. Is that about mitigating a worst-case scenario or do they know something we don’t?

For the past five years, every legislative session, certain Republican legislators monkey with women’s health. These pro-life Republicans hate Planned Parenthood with a passion. On the Senate side, Senator Tommy Williams and Senator Bob Deuell have passed the most legislation undoing women’s health choices in Texas. On the House side we have Rep. Warren Chisum and Rep. Dan Gattis among others to thank for fewer health care options.

On Wednesday, the NARAL Pro-Choice Texas Foundation held a Capitol press conference to draw attention to one such travesty authored by Senator Williams. What his budget rider passed during the 2007 session did is funnel $5 million of our tax dollars from family planning services to unlicensed and un-regulated Crisis Pregnancy Centers. These centers are the ones that sponsor those billboards all over the state that read “Pregnant? In need of Help?” They usually have a picture of a weeping Madonna and an 800 number at the bottom.

Well, there’s your women’s health services funding going down the drain. And this is in a state where we rank No. 46 in the nation in women’s health. We are also No. 2 in teenage births and No. 5 in teenage pregnancies, according to a NARAL Pro-choice Texas Foundation report released at the press conference today. Crisis Pregnancy Centers are often staffed by non-medical volunteers and often heavily religious. Their services boil down to a hotline where they advocate against abortion and for adoption.

Last session, Sen. Deuell also diverted millions from family planning services to federally qualified health centers. While FQHC’s are great, they have no history of providing family planning services. As a result, they had to return a good portion of the state funding. “This should be about health care for women and not about Planned Parenthood the Corporation,” says Laurie Felker Jones, spokesperson for NARAL Pro-Choice Texas Foundation.

Even some pro-life supporters realize that these programs targeted at abortion clinics are instead hurting family planning and women across the state. At least 17,000 women could have received check ups and family planning services with the money that has been redirected to these crisis pregnancy centers.

Senator Judith Zaffirini, a pro-life Democrat says that after two years the program has clearly failed. “Crisis pregnancy centers have failed pregnant women by neglecting to provide recommended health and social services and failed pro-life supporters by directing funds away from the health care safety net that prevents unintended pregnancies and abortions. We need to re-direct these funds to evidence-based programs that improve women’s health.”

For almost a year, Dr. Eloisa Tamez has been fighting Homeland Security’s construction of an 18-foot wall in her back yard. The Observer wrote about her struggle in our Holes in the Wall story and in previous blogs. For several weeks it seemed she had a compelling case that might at least force Homeland Security to negotiate a fair market value for her property. Last week, that came to an end when Judge Andrew Hanen, a U.S. District Court judge in Brownsville, ruled in favor of Homeland Security.

In a 13-page court document, Hanen wrote that each side found the other party’s offer unreasonable. “This is certainly a case where the parties are “unable to agree on a reasonable price.” See 8 U.S.C. 1103 (b)(3). At such an impasse, 1103 does not require this Court to order further futile negotiations, but rather permits the Government to continue with its condemnation action.”

Dr. Tamez said that she would continue to fight the construction of a border wall on her property in El Calaboz, outside of Brownsville. She is currently researching her next move with her lawyer Peter Schey. “This is not going to stop here,” she vowed after the Judge’s decision.

Tamez is one of the last of the Spanish land grant heirs along the Texas-Mexico border. Homeland Security would like the build the wall on land that was granted to her ancestors by the King of Spain in the 18th century. The wall would divide and destroy the three acres she inherited and planned to pass on to her children and grandchildren.

“Where are the constitutional rights that protect me?,” she said. “I don’t feel the government has followed our Constitution.”

Two congressional subcommittees of the House Natural Resource Committee will be holding a joint hearing on the border wall in Brownsville on April 28th. Tamez says she plans to attend. It will be held at the University of Texas at Brownsville. “Our congressional leaders have been absent and the landowners feel like we have been fighting this battle against the government on our own,” says Tamez.

The hearing will center around Arizona Rep. Raul Grijalva’s Borderlands Conservation and Security Act, which would force Homeland Security to negotiate with landowners and would require the agency to follow federal laws when constructing the wall. The bill has been languishing in a subcommittee since last summer, however.

Since Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff waived 36 federal land and environmental laws two weeks ago, the bill has gained more co-sponsors but it still lacks Republican support.

The bill also repeals the section of the REAL ID act which gave Chertoff the authority to waive environmental, labor, and other laws to construct the border wall.

Grijalva told the Rio Grande Guardian in a story Monday that “The Real ID Act is an overreach, constitutionally. What we are asking for is to introduce another constitutional right – due process,” he said. “We are not saying you cannot have national security on the border. Let’s have a process whereby the public has some input. You must have consultation, you must have NEPA and the environmental assessments and you must look for alternatives.”

Tamez says that Congressional leaders outside of Texas have done more for border residents in her community than local congressional leaders. “We want our congressional leaders to know what this border wall will cost for us,” she says. “Congressman Bennie Thompson and Raul Grijalva have been more visible on this than our own Representatives.”