ANSWERING A'JAD: DISINVEST, N.Y.!
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published in the New York Post on September 27, 2007.
Columbia University this week managed to hand a PR victory to Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. It's time for another New York institution - the state Office of the Comptroller - to join the drive to undermine this evil and dangerous regime.
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is set to sign a new law aimed at banning Golden State public pension funds - which includes the two largest ones in America - from investing in companies that are involved in developing Iranian petroleum or natural-gas resources. Florida's public-employee-retirement fund is divesting nearly $1.3 billion invested with 21 companies doing business in Iran or Sudan. (California already hit Sudan's pocketbook last year.) Missouri and Louisiana have similar policies in place.
The blow to Iran's rulers should be huge. The California system alone has assets totaling $350 billion - much of it invested in companies that do business with Iran such as Sieman's, Total, Respol and Shell.
Here in New York, state Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli has total power over the state pension funds. He could add materially to the pressure on Iran simply by the stroke of a pen. City Comptroller William Thompson Jr. could help, by pushing to move Gotham pension funds away from Iranian-investing companies.
City Council Majority Leader Joel Rivera (D-Bronx) is sponsoring a resolution calling on the state and the city to disinvest in companies that do business with Iran. He says that more than $100 billion of the holdings by New York public pension funds are invested directly or indirectly in Iran.
Thompson has sent letters to eight companies that have business ties to Iran, asking them to mitigate "the significant risks that could negatively impact the company's stock price and reputation" by their investments in Iran.
In one of the letters, Thompson warned the Spanish oil giant Respol that its investments in Iran pose "significant risks to the company, and by extension, to our investments and that of other share-owners of the company." DiNapoli also signed the letter, as did officials of the Illinois, North Carolina and California pension systems.
DiNapoli should take the further step of disinvesting in Iran, as California and Florida have done.
Eighty-five percent of Iranian government revenues come from the energy industry - a total of $55 billion in 2006. Already, falling oil production (down by a third since the 1979 revolution) and rising domestic demand will cut government energy revenues by an estimated 20 percent over the coming year.
Less government revenues mean reductions in subsidies to the restive Iranian population. Gasoline, for example, may no longer sell for 35 cents a gallon in Tehran if the government runs into financial difficulty.
The Iranian regime is increasingly unpopular, with stories circulating of clerics afraid to go out in public in their religious attire for fear of being attacked. Financial pressure on the government can be the key element in forcing a change of course. Disinvestment, after all, helped forced South Africa to abandon apartheid.
With its large Jewish population, one would expect New York to take the lead in cutting off funding to a government that denies that the Holocaust ever happened. The state that took the biggest blow on 9/11 should also join campaign against a terror-sponsoring government that's developing nuclear weapons.
A spokesman for DiNapoli says that his office is "studying" the issue of disinvestment in Iran - and notes that they've already moved on Sudan, and co-signed the "warning" letters like the one quoted above to Respol.
DiNapoli's office also said that the comptroller "has a fiduciary duty to retirees to get the best possible return on pension investments" and fears lawsuits by retirees or unions should he disinvest - and that "we want to do what's right, not what is political."
What could be more right than slowing Iran down in its drive to acquire nuclear weapons?
wwww.mccainalert.com
Saturday, September 29, 2007
If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans
If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans
Publish Date: October 2, 2007. NewsMax will have among the first copies — order your copy now!
Ann Coulter is the most reviled conservative pundit alive — as far as the liberal establishment sees it.
Presidential candidate John Edwards calls her a "she devil."
A major media magazine is attempting to get her nationally syndicated column canceled at newspapers across the country.
Why is Ann Coulter so hated and so feared?
You will find out in Ann's latest blockbuster: If Democrats had any Brains, they’d be Republicans.
With the political season red-hot, Ann's book takes on the big targets: Hillary Clinton, Obama, the liberal media and much, much more.
ln If Democrats Had Any Brains you will enjoy Ann's razor-sharp wit and refreshing candor.
This new book offers the definitive collection of Coulterisms — an incisive, often hilarious, and always entertaining compendium of Coulter’s best, funniest, most devastating, and, yes, most outrageous quotations.
Included here are hundreds of quotations never before published — from her speeches, television and radio appearances, and interviews.
Commenting on everything from Democrats to dating, environmentalism to evolution, religion to Reagan, terrorism to television, Ann Coulter is both wicked and wickedly insightful.
Ann Coulter is an conservative columnist and political commentator, and a best-selling author. Coulter has written five New York Times best seller books.
Publish Date: October 2, 2007. NewsMax will have among the first copies — order your copy now!
Ann Coulter is the most reviled conservative pundit alive — as far as the liberal establishment sees it.
Presidential candidate John Edwards calls her a "she devil."
A major media magazine is attempting to get her nationally syndicated column canceled at newspapers across the country.
Why is Ann Coulter so hated and so feared?
You will find out in Ann's latest blockbuster: If Democrats had any Brains, they’d be Republicans.
With the political season red-hot, Ann's book takes on the big targets: Hillary Clinton, Obama, the liberal media and much, much more.
ln If Democrats Had Any Brains you will enjoy Ann's razor-sharp wit and refreshing candor.
This new book offers the definitive collection of Coulterisms — an incisive, often hilarious, and always entertaining compendium of Coulter’s best, funniest, most devastating, and, yes, most outrageous quotations.
Included here are hundreds of quotations never before published — from her speeches, television and radio appearances, and interviews.
Commenting on everything from Democrats to dating, environmentalism to evolution, religion to Reagan, terrorism to television, Ann Coulter is both wicked and wickedly insightful.
Ann Coulter is an conservative columnist and political commentator, and a best-selling author. Coulter has written five New York Times best seller books.
DINNER WITH HILLARY: TALKING POINTS FOR THE NEXT ROUND
DINNER WITH HILLARY: TALKING POINTS FOR THE NEXT ROUND
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on September 26, 2007.
Even for her, Hillary Clinton showed tremendous skill at batting aside questions asked of her on the Sunday shows this past weekend and giving, instead, her standard talking points. Pinning this lady down is admittedly not easy. Two of the best interviewers on political TV — Chris Wallace and Tim Russert — asked tough questions but got scripted and memorized retorts for their pains. But here are some questions (along with follow-ups) that I suggest they ask during the next round of Sunday shows — if she ever goes back on the circuit.
• Bill Clinton refused to accept political action committee (PAC) contributions in his campaigns of 1992 and 1996. Obama and Edwards are following his example. Why aren’t you?
• After all the bad experiences you had with Johnnie Chung and Charlie Trie and their campaign donations in the 1996 election cycle, why were you not more careful in vetting the donations generated by Norman Hsu? Didn’t you learn your lesson in 1996?
(As a follow-up to No. 2) After you found that you had to return almost a million dollars to the donors bundled by Hsu, you said you would be more vigilant in examining the backgrounds of donors. Why didn’t you come to that conclusion before the Hsu scandal, based on your 1996 experiences?
• Norman Hsu was no ordinary donor. He was the biggest bundler in your campaign; he gave funds to the Clinton Global Initiative and the Clinton School of Government in Arkansas and took Patti Solis Doyle, your campaign manager, and other aides on an all-expense-paid trip to Las Vegas. He also donated to Democratic Gov. Tom Vilsack of Iowa, whose campaign debt you agreed to help repay. In view of his high profile in your campaign, why didn’t you check him out more thoroughly, and what does this say about your ability to make quality appointments?
• You base your healthcare proposal on the need to cover 47 million “uninsured Americans.” Since about a third of them are illegal immigrants and another third are eligible for Medicaid right now and just don’t apply for it, aren’t you overstating the problem?
(As a follow-up to No. 4) In 2005 you co-sponsored legislation to provide health insurance to the children of illegal immigrants who have lived in this country for five years. In other words, their children would get subsidized healthcare under the State Children’s Health Insurance Program as a reward for dodging the cops for five years. Do you still support that proposal?
• You say that your healthcare proposal will leave alone those who are happy with their current insurance. But if you provide health benefits for close to 50 million new people, thereby generating huge new demand for medical care without any increase in the supply of doctors, nurses or hospitals, it will drive up prices radically. Won’t that force you to institute cost controls by limiting the care those now on health insurance can receive?
• In Arkansas, you achieved fame by urging mandatory testing for teachers and demanded that those who failed the competency tests be dismissed. You and your husband did this and implemented this policy. As a result, he was denied the endorsement by the Arkansas Teachers Union during his time as governor. Do you still support your proposal of 1983 and 1984 for mandatory teacher competency tests for current teachers — not just for new ones?
• In Arkansas, you pioneered the idea of testing students to ascertain their progress and holding schools accountable for any shortcomings in their test scores. Now California Democratic Congressman George Miller, chairman of the House Education Committee, wants to change the No Child Left Behind Act to substitute graduation rates for test scores as the measure of a school’s performance. Opponents say this is injecting a non-objective standard and undercuts the whole purpose of the legislation. Do you support Miller’s proposal?
There’s more, but we’ve run out of time! I hope that the journalists who next have Clinton in their sights read this column, take notes and act on it. The answers to these questions would be nice to have before we elect her president.
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on September 26, 2007.
Even for her, Hillary Clinton showed tremendous skill at batting aside questions asked of her on the Sunday shows this past weekend and giving, instead, her standard talking points. Pinning this lady down is admittedly not easy. Two of the best interviewers on political TV — Chris Wallace and Tim Russert — asked tough questions but got scripted and memorized retorts for their pains. But here are some questions (along with follow-ups) that I suggest they ask during the next round of Sunday shows — if she ever goes back on the circuit.
• Bill Clinton refused to accept political action committee (PAC) contributions in his campaigns of 1992 and 1996. Obama and Edwards are following his example. Why aren’t you?
• After all the bad experiences you had with Johnnie Chung and Charlie Trie and their campaign donations in the 1996 election cycle, why were you not more careful in vetting the donations generated by Norman Hsu? Didn’t you learn your lesson in 1996?
(As a follow-up to No. 2) After you found that you had to return almost a million dollars to the donors bundled by Hsu, you said you would be more vigilant in examining the backgrounds of donors. Why didn’t you come to that conclusion before the Hsu scandal, based on your 1996 experiences?
• Norman Hsu was no ordinary donor. He was the biggest bundler in your campaign; he gave funds to the Clinton Global Initiative and the Clinton School of Government in Arkansas and took Patti Solis Doyle, your campaign manager, and other aides on an all-expense-paid trip to Las Vegas. He also donated to Democratic Gov. Tom Vilsack of Iowa, whose campaign debt you agreed to help repay. In view of his high profile in your campaign, why didn’t you check him out more thoroughly, and what does this say about your ability to make quality appointments?
• You base your healthcare proposal on the need to cover 47 million “uninsured Americans.” Since about a third of them are illegal immigrants and another third are eligible for Medicaid right now and just don’t apply for it, aren’t you overstating the problem?
(As a follow-up to No. 4) In 2005 you co-sponsored legislation to provide health insurance to the children of illegal immigrants who have lived in this country for five years. In other words, their children would get subsidized healthcare under the State Children’s Health Insurance Program as a reward for dodging the cops for five years. Do you still support that proposal?
• You say that your healthcare proposal will leave alone those who are happy with their current insurance. But if you provide health benefits for close to 50 million new people, thereby generating huge new demand for medical care without any increase in the supply of doctors, nurses or hospitals, it will drive up prices radically. Won’t that force you to institute cost controls by limiting the care those now on health insurance can receive?
• In Arkansas, you achieved fame by urging mandatory testing for teachers and demanded that those who failed the competency tests be dismissed. You and your husband did this and implemented this policy. As a result, he was denied the endorsement by the Arkansas Teachers Union during his time as governor. Do you still support your proposal of 1983 and 1984 for mandatory teacher competency tests for current teachers — not just for new ones?
• In Arkansas, you pioneered the idea of testing students to ascertain their progress and holding schools accountable for any shortcomings in their test scores. Now California Democratic Congressman George Miller, chairman of the House Education Committee, wants to change the No Child Left Behind Act to substitute graduation rates for test scores as the measure of a school’s performance. Opponents say this is injecting a non-objective standard and undercuts the whole purpose of the legislation. Do you support Miller’s proposal?
There’s more, but we’ve run out of time! I hope that the journalists who next have Clinton in their sights read this column, take notes and act on it. The answers to these questions would be nice to have before we elect her president.
Democrats Should Stand Up To Moveon.org
Democrats Should Stand Up To Moveon.org
Republican presidential candidate John McCain criticized the field of Democratic presidential hopefuls Sunday for failing to apologize for the controversial MoveOn.org advertisement that referred to General David Petraeus as "General Betray Us."
"Now, they acknowledge that [Petraeus] is an honorable and fine military man, but they refuse to repudiate MoveOn.org," McCain said of the Democrats. "And as you say, if you can't stand up to them, how can you stand up to the tough challenges that are presented to you as President of the United States? I don't know the answer to that."
The Arizona Senator was responding to a question from a military veteran in the crowd at a campaign stop here, who asked McCain how the Democratic candidates will have the courage to stand up to challenges they face in the White House if they can't stand up to MoveOn.org.
By Peter Hamby, CNN
September 17, 2007
Article Excerpt
Republican presidential candidate John McCain criticized the field of Democratic presidential hopefuls Sunday for failing to apologize for the controversial MoveOn.org advertisement that referred to General David Petraeus as "General Betray Us."
"Now, they acknowledge that [Petraeus] is an honorable and fine military man, but they refuse to repudiate MoveOn.org," McCain said of the Democrats. "And as you say, if you can't stand up to them, how can you stand up to the tough challenges that are presented to you as President of the United States? I don't know the answer to that."
The Arizona Senator was responding to a question from a military veteran in the crowd at a campaign stop here, who asked McCain how the Democratic candidates will have the courage to stand up to challenges they face in the White House if they can't stand up to MoveOn.org.
By Peter Hamby, CNN
September 17, 2007
Article Excerpt
Leaving Iraq Would Lead To Chaos, McCain Says
Leaving Iraq Would Lead To Chaos, McCain Says
Article Excerpt
With another Senate debate looming this week on a deadline for withdrawing from Iraq, Arizona Sen. John McCain said abandoning that country would lead to chaos and a period of national suffering at the hands of "evil, evil people."
Midway through his three-day "No Surrender" tour, McCain focused his brief remarks on Iraq in a packed VFW hall here, scarcely mentioning his Republican presidential candidacy.
"The strategy is succeeding," but hasn't had enough time to develop, McCain said of President Bush's troop surge.
"A date for withdrawal, I view as a date for surrender, that we would choose to lose. I don't believe we should choose to lose," he said.
McCain said that Democratic critics have "lost sight of a fundamental fact, that presidents don't lose wars and political parties don't lose wars, but nations lose wars and when nations lose wars, nations suffer."
Precipitous withdrawal, he said, would create chaos "that almost certainly would require us to come back" when Iran almost certainly moves to fill the void.
Islamic extremists are "evil, evil people ... dedicated to the destruction of everything we stand for and believe in," McCain said.
In heavily Baptist South Carolina, McCain told reporters that despite having long been identified as an Episcopalian, he has been a Baptist for some time.
By Dan Hoover, Greenville News September 17, 2007
www.mccainalert.com
Article Excerpt
With another Senate debate looming this week on a deadline for withdrawing from Iraq, Arizona Sen. John McCain said abandoning that country would lead to chaos and a period of national suffering at the hands of "evil, evil people."
Midway through his three-day "No Surrender" tour, McCain focused his brief remarks on Iraq in a packed VFW hall here, scarcely mentioning his Republican presidential candidacy.
"The strategy is succeeding," but hasn't had enough time to develop, McCain said of President Bush's troop surge.
"A date for withdrawal, I view as a date for surrender, that we would choose to lose. I don't believe we should choose to lose," he said.
McCain said that Democratic critics have "lost sight of a fundamental fact, that presidents don't lose wars and political parties don't lose wars, but nations lose wars and when nations lose wars, nations suffer."
Precipitous withdrawal, he said, would create chaos "that almost certainly would require us to come back" when Iran almost certainly moves to fill the void.
Islamic extremists are "evil, evil people ... dedicated to the destruction of everything we stand for and believe in," McCain said.
In heavily Baptist South Carolina, McCain told reporters that despite having long been identified as an Episcopalian, he has been a Baptist for some time.
By Dan Hoover, Greenville News September 17, 2007
www.mccainalert.com
Dream Act Defeated, for Now
Dream Act Defeated, for Now
Grassfire.org Alliance From the Desk of Steve Elliott
ed,
I want to thank everyone who invested their time and financial
resources to take a strong stand against the Senate's
nightmarish "Dream Act" amnesty push!
Last night Dick Durbin (D-IL), the measure's chief Senate
sponsor stated that attempts to attach the Dream Act to
the defense authorization bill had failed. "I am disappointed
for thousands of young people whose lives are just in limbo."
But even in defeat, the arrogance of amnesty Democrats was
clearly evident. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, bristling
over the defeat, said the battle is "still on" promising
passage this Fall!
Cecilia Munoz, senior vice president of the National Council
of La Raza added, "There is no question that this issue doesn't
stop here."
Click here for more:
http://www.firesociety.com/blog/100/17948/?src=111
++ Grassroots Answers the Call
ed, turnout to defeat this latest attempt by open border
lawmakers was unprecedented, and spectacular! Dianne Feinstein,
a strong supporter of the bill reported receiving more than
4,000 phone calls since September 13. A spokesman for her
office reported that while 239 calls were in favor of the bill,
3,805 were opposed!
And that doesn't even include the hundreds of thousands of faxes
that literally poured into every Senate office on Capitol Hill
over these last few weeks!
Once again the arrogance of our leadership underestimated the
strength and power of the people--the citizens of the U.S, who
once again demanded enforcement of our existing laws, the
building of the fence and absolutely NO AMNESTY FOR ILLEGALS!
Simply stated, without your efforts, Durbin and his open-border
cohorts would already be celebrating the bill’s passage with
amnesty special interests.
But, as in the past, we cannot rest on our laurels. Instead we
must remain vigilant for the next deceptive amnesty charge.
In fact, Harry Reid probably did us all a favor by promising
it would be coming again in the Fall.
ed, thanks for standing with Grassfire. I know that when
we sound the next alarm, I will be able to count on you!
Again, thank you so much for your passionate efforts to secure
our border and protect our sovereignty!
Steve Elliott, President
Grassfire.org
P.S: Just yesterday, the House passed a measure for illegal
aliens to gain access to additional taxpayer funded benefits,
including healthcare. Our staff has compiled an exclusive
backgrounder for our team. Click here to access the report:
http://www.firesociety.com/article/17956/?src=111
Grassfire.org Alliance From the Desk of Steve Elliott
ed,
I want to thank everyone who invested their time and financial
resources to take a strong stand against the Senate's
nightmarish "Dream Act" amnesty push!
Last night Dick Durbin (D-IL), the measure's chief Senate
sponsor stated that attempts to attach the Dream Act to
the defense authorization bill had failed. "I am disappointed
for thousands of young people whose lives are just in limbo."
But even in defeat, the arrogance of amnesty Democrats was
clearly evident. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, bristling
over the defeat, said the battle is "still on" promising
passage this Fall!
Cecilia Munoz, senior vice president of the National Council
of La Raza added, "There is no question that this issue doesn't
stop here."
Click here for more:
http://www.firesociety.com/blog/100/17948/?src=111
++ Grassroots Answers the Call
ed, turnout to defeat this latest attempt by open border
lawmakers was unprecedented, and spectacular! Dianne Feinstein,
a strong supporter of the bill reported receiving more than
4,000 phone calls since September 13. A spokesman for her
office reported that while 239 calls were in favor of the bill,
3,805 were opposed!
And that doesn't even include the hundreds of thousands of faxes
that literally poured into every Senate office on Capitol Hill
over these last few weeks!
Once again the arrogance of our leadership underestimated the
strength and power of the people--the citizens of the U.S, who
once again demanded enforcement of our existing laws, the
building of the fence and absolutely NO AMNESTY FOR ILLEGALS!
Simply stated, without your efforts, Durbin and his open-border
cohorts would already be celebrating the bill’s passage with
amnesty special interests.
But, as in the past, we cannot rest on our laurels. Instead we
must remain vigilant for the next deceptive amnesty charge.
In fact, Harry Reid probably did us all a favor by promising
it would be coming again in the Fall.
ed, thanks for standing with Grassfire. I know that when
we sound the next alarm, I will be able to count on you!
Again, thank you so much for your passionate efforts to secure
our border and protect our sovereignty!
Steve Elliott, President
Grassfire.org
P.S: Just yesterday, the House passed a measure for illegal
aliens to gain access to additional taxpayer funded benefits,
including healthcare. Our staff has compiled an exclusive
backgrounder for our team. Click here to access the report:
http://www.firesociety.com/article/17956/?src=111
Update from U.S. Senator John Cornyn
Update from U.S. Senator John Cornyn September 2007
This month, Gen. David Petraeus provided Congress an objective, no-nonsense assessment on Iraq. His report made it clear that the surge is working, and we’re making significant progress. Total attacks and civilian casualties have decreased and Sunni tribal leaders in al Anbar have revolted against al Qaeda. As a result, some American troops are now expected to begin returning home later this year. Our ground mission in Iraq is not open-ended, but our commitment to our national security must be.
The Senate later approved an amendment I introduced reaffirming our “support for all the men and women of the United States Armed Forces, including General David H. Petraeus,” and repudiating “the unwarranted personal attack on General Petraeus by the liberal activist group MoveOn.org.” This underscores an important precedent adhered to by previous generations of leaders in both political parties: efforts to impugn the integrity of our commanders and troops in the field during war time—in pursuit of partisan political purposes—should be rejected.
I’ve been working to see that a Defense Authorization bill, setting funding levels for important Texas military and national defense programs, is passed without unrelated amendments. I joined hundreds of veterans last week who served in Iraq and Afghanistan—Vets for Freedom—including several from Texas, and Gold and Blue Star families in support of the troops. It’s great to see grassroots support for maintaining our fight against Islamic terrorists abroad, so that Americans can remain safe at home.
We’ve also made progress in fulfilling our moral obligation to provide troops and veterans the care and benefits they need and deserve.
Earlier this month, I participated in an event marking the 75th anniversary of the Waco VA Medical Center, which provides quality care to Central Texas veterans.
I also was part of the groundbreaking ceremony in San Antonio for a new recovery center for troops and their families that will help them make a smooth transition to civilian life.
I introduced a successful amendment to the Defense Authorization bill that helps ensure federal support for the needed expansion of Darnall Army Medical Center on Fort Hood.
With Sen. Hutchison, I applaud the news that the VA will build a new $67 million Level One Polytrauma Facility in San Antonio, and that veterans will soon have expanded clinic and outpatient hospital care in the Rio Grande Valley. This is an important initial step toward ensuring South Texas veterans have access to the health care they deserve.
I joined Sen. Hutchison this month in passing legislation banning new tolls on existing lanes of interstate highways in our state. Texans whose federal tax dollars have already paid for these roads should not face double taxation through tolls. We also gained approval for an anti-gang bill I co-sponsored that will establish tougher penalties and provide support for local gang enforcement and prevention programs.
Polls show the American public is not pleased with the performance of Congress, and I understand the frustration. We are ending the 2007 fiscal year next week without having passed a single one of the 12 annual appropriations bills. And some of my colleagues are attempting to load up the Defense Authorization bill with measures that have little to do with our national security. I will continue working to ensure that Congress pays close attention to our national priorities, and avoids unnecessary partisan fighting that has diverted us so often earlier this year.
For more information on these and other topics, go directly to my Web site. To receive additional updates, please select the issues that interest you listed on the right. It’s an honor to serve you in the United States Senate.
Sincerely,
This month, Gen. David Petraeus provided Congress an objective, no-nonsense assessment on Iraq. His report made it clear that the surge is working, and we’re making significant progress. Total attacks and civilian casualties have decreased and Sunni tribal leaders in al Anbar have revolted against al Qaeda. As a result, some American troops are now expected to begin returning home later this year. Our ground mission in Iraq is not open-ended, but our commitment to our national security must be.
The Senate later approved an amendment I introduced reaffirming our “support for all the men and women of the United States Armed Forces, including General David H. Petraeus,” and repudiating “the unwarranted personal attack on General Petraeus by the liberal activist group MoveOn.org.” This underscores an important precedent adhered to by previous generations of leaders in both political parties: efforts to impugn the integrity of our commanders and troops in the field during war time—in pursuit of partisan political purposes—should be rejected.
I’ve been working to see that a Defense Authorization bill, setting funding levels for important Texas military and national defense programs, is passed without unrelated amendments. I joined hundreds of veterans last week who served in Iraq and Afghanistan—Vets for Freedom—including several from Texas, and Gold and Blue Star families in support of the troops. It’s great to see grassroots support for maintaining our fight against Islamic terrorists abroad, so that Americans can remain safe at home.
We’ve also made progress in fulfilling our moral obligation to provide troops and veterans the care and benefits they need and deserve.
Earlier this month, I participated in an event marking the 75th anniversary of the Waco VA Medical Center, which provides quality care to Central Texas veterans.
I also was part of the groundbreaking ceremony in San Antonio for a new recovery center for troops and their families that will help them make a smooth transition to civilian life.
I introduced a successful amendment to the Defense Authorization bill that helps ensure federal support for the needed expansion of Darnall Army Medical Center on Fort Hood.
With Sen. Hutchison, I applaud the news that the VA will build a new $67 million Level One Polytrauma Facility in San Antonio, and that veterans will soon have expanded clinic and outpatient hospital care in the Rio Grande Valley. This is an important initial step toward ensuring South Texas veterans have access to the health care they deserve.
I joined Sen. Hutchison this month in passing legislation banning new tolls on existing lanes of interstate highways in our state. Texans whose federal tax dollars have already paid for these roads should not face double taxation through tolls. We also gained approval for an anti-gang bill I co-sponsored that will establish tougher penalties and provide support for local gang enforcement and prevention programs.
Polls show the American public is not pleased with the performance of Congress, and I understand the frustration. We are ending the 2007 fiscal year next week without having passed a single one of the 12 annual appropriations bills. And some of my colleagues are attempting to load up the Defense Authorization bill with measures that have little to do with our national security. I will continue working to ensure that Congress pays close attention to our national priorities, and avoids unnecessary partisan fighting that has diverted us so often earlier this year.
For more information on these and other topics, go directly to my Web site. To receive additional updates, please select the issues that interest you listed on the right. It’s an honor to serve you in the United States Senate.
Sincerely,
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)