You are hereForums / ADS Forums / Los Angeles, CA / BIGFISH'S 2ND "EPISTLE" TO SENATOR FEINSTEIN

BIGFISH'S 2ND "EPISTLE" TO SENATOR FEINSTEIN


BELOW I TRY TO CLARIFY SENATOR FEINSTEIN'S MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE I-69 ISSUE:

cc of my 4/28/2008 letter to Senator Feinstein:

Below is a copy of an email dated March 6, 2008, in which my Congressman, Jerry Lewis (R-CA 41st) contradicts your latest letter dated April 22, 2008. As you know, Rep Lewis is the Ranking Member on the House Appropriations Comte. He claims that federal funds have been allocated to the states of Texas, Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana Kentucky, and Indianna for construction of I-69 in those states on a state by state basis.

Therefore, based on Rep Lewis I -69 has been allocated funds by Congress on a "piece meal basis" rather than as a whole continuous Interstate project. I suppose it is a matter of semantics. The upshot is that we have a NAFTA Highway running west to east, then north into Canada, rather than the proposed original NAFTA HIghway that runs south to north from Mexico City through Texas and up to Canada.

At any rate, we have a proposed Interstate 69 that has been allocated federal funds, in part, in various states. Once these sections are linked, that makes it a whole.

No, it is not a highway that runs through the heartland of Texas to Canada, but instead, it would take an easterly direction from Texas through Arkansas , Mississippi, Louisiana turn north through Kentucky, and Indiana to Canada.

Another way of looking at it is the Administration has pulled the "wool over the eyes" of Congress. Instead of calling it the NAFTA Highway, they are called "NAFTA Corridors."

This is a clever way of the Administration "going arund Robins barn" in order to get what it wants. Therefore, don't call it the NAFTA Highway; call it "NAFTA Corridors. It amounts to the same thing. With the completion of the Panama Canal expansion, the NAFTA Corridors should be completed in about the same time.

Ships from Asia would by-pass the Ports of Los Angeles/Long Beach and California would lose 200 billion dollars in the cargo container business.

Then, Virgil Goode can scream and holler from the halls of Congress and say, it was not the "sense of the Congress" that this "end run" was supposed to happen. In the meanwhile, California would be in the midst of an economic depression.

Also, below is a press release that explains further my reasoning:

March 6, 2008

Mr. Robert E. Fisher
7717 Church Avenue
Highland, CA 92346

Dear Mr. Fisher:

Thank you for writing to me with concerns about the proposed "NAFTA Highway." I appreciate the chance to respond to my constituents on matters of national importance.

Shortly after the approval of the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1994, a number of Midwest and Southwest states began discussing the possibility of extending Interstate 69 from Indianapolis, Indiana to the Mexican border. The Interstate originates on the Canadian border in Michigan and now terminates in Indianapolis. The main promoters - the states of Indiana and Texas - named their plan the NAFTA Highway and urged federal support as a way to speed goods from Mexico to the nation's interior.

At the request of the states, Congress has allocated funding for the development of Interstate 69 in Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana and Texas. As with all federal highway projects, the states must provide a matching fund and have the chief responsibility for design, land acquisition and construction of the highway. None of the states has progressed to the point of construction of their portion of this highway.

There is no federal plan to create a superhighway from Canada to Mexico, although both Congress and the Administration supported the development of more "goods movement" corridors throughout the nation in the current federal highway authorization bill. I was pleased that the bill included the Alameda Corridor, which aids in the movement of goods from the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach through the Inland Empire.

The administration does not have the authority to approve or develop a new trade corridor in the interior of the United States, or waive any restrictions on inspections or standards to facilitate goods movement with Canada and Mexico. Congress retains full control of these matters, and I assure you that no changes will be made without lengthy and detailed hearings. As you may know, the House of Representatives is currently conducting field hearings about the need to strengthen border security, not weaken it. This includes the consideration of any new trade corridors.

Thank you again for contacting me on this issue. I will keep your concerns in mind as we continue to consider legislation to improve our border security.

Sincerely,

Jerry Lewis
Member of Congress

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT PERSON: BOB FISHER, MSW
R. E. FISHER KOO7, INC.
909-864-6243
909-864-4521
rbrtfis@aol.com

FUTURE SHOCK CALIFORNIA PORTS IN PERIL:
WHY ARE RECISSIONS NEEDED ON I-69 PROJECTS IN THE FY 2008 FEDERAL HIGHWAYS TRANSPORTATION BUDGET IN TEXAS, ARKANSAS, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, KENTUCKY AND INDIANA?
California elected officials should support the above recissions to the I-69 projects in the various states, because completion of these projects in future years would take away $billions of business from California, and give it to possibly the PORT OF HOUSTON, or some other port in the "NAFTA Scheme of things."
Recissions are needed to avoid Asian cargo container vessels from by-passing Los Angeles and Long Beach Ports by going through the Panama Canal to berth at the Port of Houston in future years, once the Panama Canal is widened to accomodate cargo container vessels.
Currently, these vessels do not have an alternative to the San Pedro Bay Ports. However, proposed deep water ports in Mexico and the Panama Canal expansion project, now under construction, would change things.
The Asian nations have been complaining about the high cost of port fees for over 30 years!
Cargo container fees have increased over the last 30 years, and have not decreased.
Environment regulations of the California Coastal Commission, the Bay Conservation Development Commission (BCDC), and the South Coast Air Quality Management District have added more costs for compliance.
Practicality would tell one that should Asian cargo container vessels by-pass Los Angeles/Long Beach in future years, it would be cost beneficial to the Asian cargo container vessels.
ONE CAN THANK BILL CLINTON, GEORGE W. BUSH AND NAFTA FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT!
K007, Inc. is a consulting firm specializing in the California Coastal Act of 1976-77. The principle, Robert E. Fisher, MSW, monitored the California Coastal Commission by attending 2 day meetings in coastal cities up and down the California Coast from 1974-78. During this time the California Coastal Commission adopted its Administrative Rules, Regulations and Guidelines.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT PERSON: BOB FISHER, MSW
R. E. FISHER KOO7, INC.
909-864-6243
909-864-4521
rbrtfis@aol.com

FUTURE SHOCK CALIFORNIA PORTS IN PERIL:
WHY ARE RECISSIONS NEEDED ON I-69 PROJECTS IN THE FY 2008 FEDERAL HIGHWAYS TRANSPORTATION BUDGET IN TEXAS, ARKANSAS, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, KENTUCKY AND INDIANA?
California elected officials should support the above recissions to the I-69 projects in the various states, because completion of these projects in future years would take away $billions of business from California, and give it to possibly the PORT OF HOUSTON, or some other port in the "NAFTA Scheme of things."

Recissions are needed to avoid Asian cargo container vessels from by-passing Los Angeles and Long Beach Ports by going through the Panama Canal to berth at the Port of Houston in future years, once the Panama Canal is widened to accomodate cargo container vessels.

Currently, these vessels do not have an alternative to the San Pedro Bay Ports. However, proposed deep water ports in Mexico and the Panama Canal expansion project, now under construction, would change things.

The Asian nations have been complaining about the high cost of port fees for over 30 years!

Cargo container fees have increased over the last 30 years, and have not decreased.

Environment regulations of the California Coastal Commission, the Bay Conservation Development Commission (BCDC), and the South Coast Air Quality Management District have added more costs for compliance.

Practicality would tell one that should Asian cargo container vessels by-pass Los Angeles/Long Beach in future years, it would be cost beneficial to the Asian cargo container vessels.

ONE CAN THANK BILL CLINTON, GEORGE W. BUSH AND NAFTA FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT!

K007, Inc. is a consulting firm specializing in the California Coastal Act of 1976-77. The principle, Robert E. Fisher, MSW, monitored the California Coastal Commission by attending 2 day meetings in coastal cities up and down the California Coast from 1974-78. During this time the California Coastal Commission adopted its Administrative Rules, Regulations and Guidelines.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Robert E. Fisher, MSW

Senator Feinstein is trying to understand the I-69 issues, the rest are in denial.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Informed Activist

Support WarIsACrime



Donate.








Tweet your Congress critters here.


Advertise on this site!




Facebook      Twitter





Our Stores:























Movie Memorabilia.



The log-in box below is only for bloggers. Nobody else will be able to log in because we have not figured out how to stop voluminous spam ruining the site. If you would like us to have the resources to figure that out please donate. If you would like to receive occasional emails please sign up. If you would like to be a blogger here please send your resume.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.