anyone want to help me respond to my congresswoman?

[w8liftinglady]

I need someone with more info/insight than me-

http://www.thedailylight.com/articles/2010/09/27/opinion/doc4ca0b525e1ad9364449755.txt

Kay Bailey Hutchison
U.S. senator

Today, around 150,000 American troops are serving in harm’s way in two theaters of war, while nearly 2 million others are in active, reserve, or guard duty at home and abroad. Military families continue to willingly and proudly sacrifice as their loved ones fight to keep our nation free. Making sure our military is well-supported is one of Congress’s most important legislative duties. Through an annual Defense Authorization bill, we set the policies that will govern our military operations, guide our war efforts, and provide for troops and their families. Of all our responsibilities, few are as straightforward and critical as this one.

Unfortunately, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid took a bill that should have easily won broad support in the Senate and saddled it with unrelated provisions that, while important, were included to complicate the process. Many in the Senate found this maneuver disappointing and detrimental to the support our Armed Services deserve. Yet, we were denied the opportunity to amend this important legislation. Putting a comprehensive bill on the floor and closing it to any amendments thwarts the purpose of the Senate to thoughtfully set policy and spending priorities. And by adding strings to the Defense Authorization bill, a number of key provisions to support our troops and keep our nation secure have been placed in jeopardy.

Providing the highest level of support and care for our nation’s wounded warriors should be a cornerstone of any annual defense policy bill. The Defense Authorization bill included provisions to fully fund the Defense Health and Wounded Warrior Programs so that those who have been injured on the battlefield receive the care they need.

The bill would also set policies to support the families of service members who are wounded in duty. The bill authorizes training programs and funding for family caregivers so they are better able to attend to their service members’ needs. It also requires that post-deployment health reassessments be included in the military’s medical tracking system. These provisions would give our military families peace-of-mind while their loved ones are serving in active duty and support when they return home.

We must also continue to provide better services and quality of life programs for our military families. As a founding member of the bipartisan Senate Military Family Caucus, I recognize the important role families have in our nation’s all-volunteer military force. The Defense Authorization bill addresses many of the concerns military families across Texas have shared with me, such as authorizing funding for child development centers and youth development programs. The bill also provides assistance to children with disabilities and requires the establishment of an advisory panel on community support for military families with special needs.

In addition to caring for our troops and their families, the legislation also authorizes programs that are vital to the protection of our homeland. It supports critical research and development to identify new methods to detect nuclear materials and weapons. It sets policies governing important national programs including missile defense, biochemical warfare deterrence, and cybersecurity. Setting sound policies with prioritized funding will ensure our nation is able to detect and deter 21st century attacks.

Lastly, the Defense Authorization bill includes provisions that will help Texas and other southwestern states address the escalating violence on our shared boundary with Mexico. The bill requires the Secretary of Defense to send 6,000 National Guard personnel to help secure the U.S.-Mexico border.

Instead of focusing on these priorities, attention has been shifted to unrelated policy issues. And if relevant amendments had been allowed, I had filed one to save $800 million in taxpayer dollars by cutting unnecessary military spending for new and duplicative facilities at overseas bases. These costly overseas military construction projects are contrary to our policy of stationing more of our troops on U.S. soil. We’ve invested more than $14 billion to build housing, stationing, training, and deployment capacities at major U.S. installations, including those in Texas. My amendment would have both strengthened U.S. military basing posture and reined in unnecessary federal spending.

Had it not been for unrelated provisions and a prohibitive amendment process, I believe the Senate could have passed the Defense Authorization bill on a bipartisan basis. My colleagues and I are committed to working toward passage of a responsible defense policy bill that is solely focused on providing for our troops and equipping them with the tools and policies to defend our nation.

Kay Bailey Hutchison is the senior U.S. Senator from Texas and is the Ranking Member on the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Subcommittee.

[The Philosopher]

1. I dislike her so much

She's bitching about processes when she wouldn't even give Texas a chance to vote for a new Senator if she had won the primary. She essentially wanted to control both the Governor's office and her Senate seat at the same time. Good thing she's a loser. If closing the amendments was against the rules, that's one thing. But apparently it was allowed. And, instead of complaining about it, knowing that it was coming they should've made a deal with the Democrats. "I'll give my support for this if we can make amendments." But, no, that's sanity. That's against the Pledge to America.

Oh, and nevermind all the unethical things she's done in her political career. She only cares about rules and procedures when it suits her.

And you know what? I bet she listed ALL the amendments she would've put in. Because she's an honest person. :eyes:

Here's a question: if amendments can be made, can things be taken out and called an amendment?

[rustydog]

2. Point out the GOP provisions that were going to be put in

then show the photograph of flag-draped coffins returning from Iraq and Afghanistan and ask her which soldier is Gay.

Then ask her why she hates gays refuses to support our troops. Ask her why she is willing to let more Americans die in order for her to try to scofre voter points.

[Mikeystyle]

3. Ask her why she doesn't suppor the troops

During the presidential campaign John McCain said he would "listen to the generals" in deciding this policy--well the generals have spoken and they don't have a problem with it.

Britain, Israel and many other nations allow gays to serve openly without problems.

"Don't ask, don't tell" is a myth, because there are cases where the military has snooped into a soldier's private email account just on the suspicion that they were gay---the whole idea behind DADT was that they could be gay in secret and wouldn't be targeted; but they are.

Two judges have already said DADT is unconstitutional.

Polls say most soldiers either support repeal of DADT or don't really care. Only a slim minority of troops are strongly opposed.

Why not ask your senator how come she doesn't support the troops? After all, if a Democrat had voted against a defense spending bill for ANY reason, that's EXACTLY how the Republicans would play it.

[EC]

4. She points to the added provisions

as being important, but not related...yet they are military related and since she views them as important what is her reasoning for not voting to advance to debate?

They just want to add poison pill amendments so they can get Dems on up and down votes for their ads...that means they are finding that HCR and stimulus complaints aren't making as much of a dent in the indies as they expected...aw, shucks too bad...

[w8liftinglady]

8. specifically-what are the "provisions" they object to?

if DADT is one of them,great-i will ask why we do not respect their service and state how many have died,and how many had loved ones that suffered as much as the "straight troops".
what other provisions?
I basically am going to accuse them of not supporting the troops by refusing to fund them.
I just need the facts to go with it.

[w8liftinglady]

5. so THIS is in regards to DADT?...My response will be published,so I want it to be accurate

spot on accurate,as there is NO tolerance for liberal opinions here..

"Had it not been for unrelated provisions and a prohibitive amendment process, I believe the Senate could have passed the Defense Authorization bill on a bipartisan basis. My colleagues and I are committed to working toward passage of a responsible defense policy bill that is solely focused on providing for our troops and equipping them with the tools and policies to defend our nation."


I will enjoy defending it...and criticizing them for harming our troops and their families.

[Imalittleteapot]

6. What's the point of responding?

She won't listen.

[w8liftinglady]

7. my response will be in the local paper...which is why...

the facts have to be immaculate.She may not respond,but if I can enlighten one person,it will be worth it.

[w8liftinglady]

9. kick for evening crew

[w8liftinglady]

10. and again...

[krispos42]

11. So, just under sixty votes isn't "broad support"?

And where was her willingness to stand up to the Senate Majority Leader when the Republican majority was ramming things through the Senate.




It seems that she thinks the bill had tons of stuff that she supported. So the bill should be killed because it didn't contain everything she wanted?

[unhappycamper]

12. Kay Bailey Hutchison is another waste of air.

"Putting a comprehensive bill on the floor and closing it to any amendments thwarts the purpose of the Senate to thoughtfully set policy and spending priorities. And by adding strings to the Defense Authorization bill, a number of key provisions to support our troops and keep our nation secure have been placed in jeopardy."

What have the Republicans been doing to pretty much every bill they have pushed thru Congress? Special Interest amendments and constant whining seem to be in every bill they passed from 2000 to 2006.

The annual 'Defense' bill kabuki hasn't changed. We say "Support Out Troops" and they say "GE needs that new engine for the F-35".

The Veterans Administration under bu$h got enough money to shut people up but did not attempt to take care of Veterans they way they should be taken care of. The VA finally recognized that Agent Orange was bad for people and started care for American soldiers with Agent Orange problems. Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) and the VA have been in a pissing contest:

Shinseki Fights off Veterans’ Enemy Sen. James Webb, Defends Agent Orange Benefits
September 23, 2010 posted by Michael Leon

This morning, while posturing as the earnest student of empirical investigation, Webb prefaced his hostile line of questioning of witness Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki saying Webb is concerned about protecting the “credibility of our programs.”

~snip~

As if it to illustrate his point of concern about the recent Presumptive Agent Orange Disability rule, Webb asked his assistant to produce a chart (who is also a Marine Webb pointed out) showing that 431,699 additional Vietnam veterans would now be eligible for service-connected benefits because of the expanded Agent Orange VA rules.

Regarding Veterans affairs, Jim Webb and Kay Bailey Hutchison are a waste of air.

From where I sit, the only things Republicans do is to tout the military 'hero' meme and try to keep the occupations going as long as possible. Their MIC masters demand nothing less.

On a side note, military expenditures in the 2011 national budget is 58% of discretionary funds. Interest on the national debt is 7% of discretionary funds. In contrast, Education gets a whole 4% of discretionary funds in 2011.

Our national priorities are wrong.

[w8liftinglady]

13. ok...my response-we'll see if they print it

"Instead of focusing on these priorities, attention has been shifted to unrelated policy issues." Senator-why don't you all just say it-Dont Ask,Don't Tell repealment is included.
You will sacrifice all that is good with this bill,making the military and their families suffer,because you personally do not care for this provision.You would continue with the double standard for gay and lesbian military because you personally find it offensive.No matter their sacrifice,their bravery...and their survivors-you would stall this bill because you find it offensive.
As the mother of an Iraq-war veteran and a volunteer with The National Coalition for Homeless Veterans,I can tell you that delaying passage of this bill due to certain "provisions" your party finds "while important, were included to complicate the process" has done more to hurt the troops than recognizing a gay soldier for what he is will ever do.

[unhappycamper]

14. Good rebuttal.

:thumbsup: