YOUR GOVERNMENT AT WORK

[Soldier4Christ]

Democrat Senate Passed 94% of Bills without Debate or Roll Call Vote

Sens. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) dismissed Democratic claims of obstructionism and expressed outrage last week over a government report that shows the majority of bills that have passed in the Democrat-controlled Senate of the 110th Congress have done so without any debate or even a vote.

“The U.S. Senate has a nine percent approval rating, because the American people believe that much of our work is done in secret with no debate, no transparency and no accountability,” Coburn told reporters at press conference Wednesday at the Capitol.

“This report shows that the reality is worse than the public’s fears. Instead of encouraging open debate, I’m disappointed that Majority Leader Reid often chooses secrecy or demagoguery,” he added.

Coburn was referring to a non-partisan study released on June 10 by the government’s Congressional Research Service (CRS), which indicates that 855 of the 911 bills passed by the Senate of the 110th Congress have been streamlined by Democratic Party leadership with a procedural tactic known as Unanimous Consent (UC), which requires no debate or even a vote.

With the Senate’s traditional August recess about to start, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has repeatedly accused Republicans, however, and especially Coburn and DeMint, of blocking UC on legislation that he says is critical to the well-being of many Americans.

Coburn and DeMint have a reputation for reading and objecting to bills that would have otherwise passed without debate or objection, Bryan Darling, director of Senate relations for the conservative Heritage Foundation, told CNSNews.com.

Reid has also objected to a procedural tactic know as filibuster, which Republicans have used to block legislation they oppose.

“I had out here earlier today our Velcro chart, 79 [Republican] filibusters,” said Reid on June 25. “Is it any wonder that the House seats that came up during the off-year went Democratic? Is it any wonder that the State of Mississippi sent us a Democratic House Member? … It is no wonder because they see what is going on over here.”

Reid was referring to a flip chart that the Democrats use to tally the number of GOP filibusters. As of Friday, July 25, there were 85 Republican filibusters, according to Reid’s press office.

On Thursday, Reid introduced the Advance America’s Priorities Act, which is nicknamed the “Coburn Omnibus” because it patches together 40 bills, many of which Coburn has already stopped from passing through the Senate by Unanimous Consent.

Reid’s press secretary, Jim Manley, told The Hill on June 27 that the omnibus is a reaction to Coburn’s obstruction.

“Look what happened last time we did this: Sen. Coburn held up action on dozens of bills for narrow, personal reasons, demanding debate and four amendments,” said Manley.

“These bills were held up for months. The Senate had to waste precious time to allow him to offer a few amendments. That is not debate and amendment. It is abuse, obstruction and delay,” he said.

“Things have gotten so bad that Republican senators have approached Reid to ask that their bills be included in the package,” Manley added.

But Coburn said on Wednesday that forcing costly bills before Congress right before a recess is typical of the Democratic leadership’s approach to legislating.

“They [Democrats] have tried to ram them [bills] through right before recess to pressure us to give up,” said Coburn. “But senators shouldn’t fear debate on these important bills.

“It’s in the best traditions of our republic to demand the Senate actually do its job and have a public debate on bills that expand government and increase the burden on taxpayers. Senator Reid can complain all he wants, but Republicans represent millions of Americans whose voices are being silenced by Democrat strong-arm tactics,” he added.

[nChrist]

Brothers and Sisters,

I can understand why the Democrats don't want many of the bills to come to the floor for discussion and debate. There's a good chance that the people will find out about them also. It would be dangerous for the public to find out about some of the things they're trying to do, so they try to keep that a secret. These are our public servants trying to push things through in secret. If they don't want to discuss the bills and vote on them - they don't want to do their job they were elected to do. SEND THEM HOME and put someone in office who wants to do the work.

[Soldier4Christ]

I remember Governor Moonbeam (now Attorney General Jerry Brown) quite well. He needs to leave his history as completed history instead of trying to keep making more.

[Soldier4Christ]

Oil? Ah, let Russia have it
State Department gives away 125,000 square miles of Alaskan ocean floor

Even if Congress follows President Bush's lead in opening off-shore oil exploration, there exist over 125,000 square miles of sea bottom that won't be explored, because the State Department – amid controversy and against the will of Alaskans – has surrendered the land to Russia.

Eight islands and their surrounding sea floors were ceded to the former Soviet Union as part of the U.S.-U.S.S.R. Maritime Boundary Treaty in 1991, a treaty signed by the U.S. Senate and President George Bush but never ratified by the Soviets. Nonetheless, an executive agreement enforcing the terms of the treaty until ratification has been in place through three presidencies, meaning the State Department officially recognizes the islands as Russian territory.

Alaskan legislators, who were given no input or authority on the island giveaway, have long protested the treaty, declaring it null and void without Russian ratification.

And since last week's U.S. Geological Survey estimating that 90 billion barrels of oil lie undiscovered and technically recoverable above the Arctic Circle, those 125,000 square miles of seabed have taken on newly appreciated value. Five of the islands lie north of the Artic Circle, and the other three sit at the western end of Alaska's Aleutian island chain.

Carl Olson, a retired U.S. Navy Lieutenant Commander and chairman of State Department Watch, a nonpartisan foreign policy watchdog group, explained to WND the significance of the State Department's stance: "The area off the coast of an island that a nation may use is called the exclusive economic zone. The group in charge of defining that is the State Department. So (the president and Congress) can say the off-shore areas are opened up, but still not recognize these quarter of a million square miles available for American oil exploration."

Alaska state Rep. John B. Coghill told WND earlier, "The issues involve not only state sovereignty over vital territories but also significant national defense concerns and substantial economic losses over fisheries and petroleum."

The Alaskan legislature and a sympathetic California legislature have both passed resolutions asking Congress to allow Alaska at the bargaining table with Russia to resolve the islands' ownership. After almost 20 years of official protests, the U.S. State Department has yet to acknowledge Alaska's arguments.

"It's totally anti-public, anti-Congress, anti-state actions – but unfortunately the State Department thinks it has the power to adopt this boundary line with the Russians without anybody's consent outside themselves, " Olson told WND. "The State Department is basically chopping off a piece of Alaska and giving it to a foreign government without Alaska having any say in it."

The lands in dispute include the islands of Herald, Bennett, Henrietta, Jeanette, Copper Island, Sea Lion Rock, Sea Otter Rock, and Wrangel, which is the largest of the eight, roughly the size of Rhode Island and Delaware combined.

The U.S. purchased Alaska from Russia in 1867, including the Aleutian Islands, which presumably would include Copper Island, Sea Otter Rock and Sea Lion Rock. In 1881, U.S. Captain Calvin L. Hooper landed on Wrangel Island and claimed it for the U.S. Also in 1881, the U.S. Navy claimed the islands of Bennett, Jeannette, and Henrietta. The British held Herald Island, but they gave up that claim, permitting the U.S. to take it.

American citizens had occupied Wrangel Island from approximately 1881 to 1924, when Russian soldiers landed and forcibly removed the American occupants from its shores. The Russians then reportedly used the island as a concentration camp.

Many Alaskan legislators believe the islands were part of their state, even after the Wrangel invasion, though the U.S. State Department officially disagrees. Without a ratified treaty designating them as Russian, those same legislators and Carl Olson believe the islands still are American territory and can be reverted to the U.S. easily.

The only thing binding the islands to Russia is "in the form of an executive agreement," Olson told WND, "which means it can be changed with the stroke of a pen by the president, because it has no force of law."

"We have been steadily maintaining the pressure," said Olson. "It's just a matter of finding sympathetic people in Washington and the other states to go for it. There's plenty of organizations who have endorsed our efforts, so we keep up the drumbeat."

Coghill has also sought the support of other states, claiming that the federal State Department has overstepped its authority in giving away a state's land. "If they can do this to Alaska," he warns, "they can do this to any state."

U.S. State Department officials did not return WND telephone calls to discuss the matter, but a State Department webpage devoted to the island controversy denies that islands were ever claimed by the United States and explains that though the treaty between the U.S. and Russian Federation was never fully ratified, "In a separate exchange of diplomatic notes, the two countries agreed to apply the agreement provisionally."

The webpage concludes, "The U.S. has no intention of reopening discussion of the 1990 Maritime Boundary Treaty."

[Soldier4Christ]

The BIG lie!

BIG = Bold Ignominious Government

[nChrist]

The BIG lie!

BIG = Bold Ignominious Government

UM? I want to know how the passage of a large number of bills without debate, without a vote, and without public knowledge fits into this so-called "OPEN GOVERNMENT". How can they stand behind signs like that with a straight face? The ONLY thing I can think of is years of practice in LYING!

[Soldier4Christ]

Military 'gay' ban supporters demonized by Congress
'Show hearing would have made Stalin proud'

The chief of The Center for Military Preparedness says the reaction to her testimony before a congressional hearing has proven her point: That allowing open homosexuality in the U.S. military will create an atmosphere of intense persecution for those who disagree with the lifestyle choice.

Further, it would damage the military's morale, handicap its capabilities and deprive it of thousands of good service members, Elaine Donnelly told WND.

She was reacting to the recent hearing before the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Personnel and committee chief U.S. Rep. Susan Davis, D-Calif.

Robert Knight, of the Culture and Media Institute, described the hearing like this: "Surrounded by hostile faces in the gallery, hostile faces of the liberal congressmen who dominated the 'hearing,' and the skeptical faces of reporters from liberal media, Mrs. Donnelly listened stoically while other witnesses trashed her personally during their testimony. Because of the rules, she was not able to respond until called late in the proceedings for her own testimony."

At issue was the 1993 imposition by President Bill Clinton of the so-called "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policies that allow homosexuals who did not publicly announce their lifestyle choice to participate in the U.S. military even though the underlying law still banned that.

Congress now is on a campaign to correct such "rights" violations and is considering changing that law.

But according to reports, Donnelly's invited testimony was met with derisive comments about her objections to homosexuals in the military, and her supporting arguments for those objections.

Donnelly said such a reaction simply confirmed her premise.

"Show me members of Congress who verbally abuse witnesses testifying before them, and I will show you a group of liberals doing everything they can to prevent the witnesses from being heard," she said.

"My mission as an invited witness was to defend the 1993 statute that Congress actually passed, which states that homosexuals are not eligible to serve in the military," she said. "Accompany me was Brian Jones, a retired sergeant major of the U.S. Army's elite Delta Force.

"We did our best to present testimony on the consequences of repealing that law, and our statements are on the record. We had difficulty being heard, however, because liberal members of the committee avoided relevant issues by attacking our motives and asking absurd questions," she said.

She continued, "The barrage of personal insults and diversionary insinuations, ironically, served to prove my point. If the 1993 law is repealed:

    * "The new policy will be forced cohabitation with homosexuals, 24/7, in all military communities, including Army and Marine infantry battalions, Special Operations Forces, Navy SEALS, and all the ships at sea, including submarines. This would be tantamount to forcing female soldiers to cohabit with men in intimate quarters, 24/7, with no recourse but to leave or avoid the military all together.

    * "Taking the 'civil rights' argument to its logical, misguided conclusion, the military will be required to give special rights to professed (not discreet) homosexuals, and enforce a corollary policy of 'zero tolerance' of anyone who disagrees. The military does not do things halfway. Commanders will not be able to improve the situation, since they might be accused of 'intolerance' themselves.

    * "Current incidents of sexual misconduct involving men and women will be increased three-fold, to include male/male and female/female issues.

    * "To make the new policy 'work,' valuable training time will be diverted to 'diversity' training reflecting the attitudes of civilian gay activist groups. This training will attempt to overcome the normal human desire for modesty and privacy in sexual matters – a quest that is inappropriate for the military and unlikely to succeed.

    * "Any complaints about inappropriate passive/aggressive actions conveying a homosexual message or approach, short of physical touching and assault, will be met with career-killing presumptions about the motives of the person who complains: bigotry, homophobia, racism, or worse. As a result, untold thousands of people to leave or avoid the all-volunteer force."

Tommy Sears, the executive director for the center, agreed.

"It quickly deteriorated into a show hearing that would have made Stalin proud," he wrote. "Elaine and Sgt. Major Jones gave their opening statements, and shortly the rout was on. The Democrats' tactic was to ask a lengthy question (which more times than not turned into a polemic against Elaine), expending much if not all of their allotted time. Any time left for a response from Elaine or Sgt. Maj. Jones was of little consequence, as they were cut off or shouted down by congressmen or congresswomen who then would launch into another mini-speech."

He said members of Congress clearly intended to "demonize as morally repugnant (bigoted, homophobic, or worse) anyone who dared disagree with the Democrats' and homosexual activists' point of view."

He said, "Since the hearing, staff and other regular observers of Congress have commented to me that Wednesday's session was the shoddiest display of decorum, particularly on the House Armed Services Committee, that they had ever seen."

"Particularly capricious was Rep. Vic Snyder, D-Ark.," Sears said. "I found outrageous his gratuitous comments with regard to Elaine's submitted testimony and motives. He insinuated that had Congressman [Barney] Frank been there, Elaine would find his presence objectionable because Frank would 'sexualize the atmosphere.' Snyder's sarcastic manner and interruption of Elaine's answer made it difficult for her to counter with the obvious – members of Congress do not cohabit with Barney Frank."

"Chris Shays, R-Conn., showed up, even though he is not a member of the committee. He tried very hard to get Elaine to say something – anything – personally critical of the female Navy captain who was there. When she refused to do that and said she was there to discuss public policy, he began demagoguing Elaine, her testimony, and her arguments," Sears said.

One woman even asked: "Mrs. Donnelly, when did you realize that you were a heterosexual?

But Sears said such behavior provides Congressional documentation for Donnelly's point: If the ban on homosexuals in the military is repealed and people are subjected to passive/aggressive behavior that sexualizes the military's no-privacy atmosphere, anyone who "objects" will be condemned for "homophobia" or worse.

"So no one will complain. They will just leave – or avoid the military in the first place. As a result, the military will lose thousands of good people," Sears said.

Knight said Donnelly kept her cool throughout, and "carefully laid out the case for the law that Congress passed in 1993 and which has been upheld by multiple courts."

He also explained he's seen such behavior before.

"A few years ago I was debating the topic of 'gay marriage' at an Ivy League college with a prominent lesbian activist. At one point, she lost her cool, got off message and started loudly denouncing the Bush Administration's Iraq policies and people like me. Finally, the moderator reined her in. I never raised my voice. I stayed on point. Afterward, when we talked in a student lounge, she exclaimed that she didn't know what had happened, but that 'both of us just started yelling at each other.' No, she had been yelling at me. She projected her anger on to me, which is something I see certain gay activists doing quite often, accusing their opponents of hate where there is none.

"This is what military personnel who oppose homosexuality as immoral can expect to face in a new climate of politically correct enforcement of pro-homosexual sentiments if the ban is lifted," Knight said.

Donnelly told WND the behavior of the committee simply was unprofessional and rude.

"The one good thing that may come out of this hearing; it remains to be seen whether the responsible members of the committee will understand the behavior, the treatment I received is exactly the kind of presumption of motive gays in the military will cause," she said.

[Soldier4Christ]

New York to sell roads, bridges, tunnels to close budget gap?
Governor cites 'private-public partnerships' as way to stem tide of red ink

Warning of an approaching economic calamity, Gov. Paterson yesterday called an emergency session of the state Legislature - and raised the specter that New York may have to sell off roads, bridges and tunnels to close a massive budget deficit.

In a rare televised address, the Democratic governor cited "private-public partnerships" involving the sale of state assets - widely condemned by critics as fiscal gimmickry - as one way to stem a tide of red ink brought on by the sagging economy and woes on Wall Street.

"We can't wait and hope that this problem will resolve itself," Paterson said. "These times call for action, and today I promise you there will be action."

Profit-tax collections from the state's 16 biggest banks, which were at $173 million in June 2007, fell to $5 million last month, Paterson noted. That's a shocking 97 percent plunge.

 But the governor's five-minute speech offered few specific solutions to a three-year budget deficit. The gap has ballooned to $26.2 billion from $21.5 billion - a whopping 22 percent increase - in just 90 days.

Next year alone, the state expects to face a budget deficit of $6.4 billion, up from a projection in March of $5 billion.

Paterson promised to examine ways to trim the state work force and consider deeper budget cuts beyond the 3.3 percent he ordered after taking office this spring.

"We're going to end the legislators' vacations and bring them back to Albany to reprioritize the way we manage New York state's finances," he said.

Paterson said he would ask lawmakers during the session on Aug. 19 to take up his proposal to cap school property taxes at 4 percent a year.

In a nod to the tax cap's chief opponent, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver (D-Manhattan), the governor also promised action on Silver's pet proposal to increase home-heating subsidies.

But Silver reacted coolly.

"If it is our intention to ask working families to shoulder the burden of these cuts, we must ensure that our most affluent citizens share that burden," he said.

Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos (R-LI) cautioned Paterson that any cuts to school funding were off the table.

The "sale" of state assets has been tried in the past during difficult economic times and has been met with condemnation from budget watchdogs.

The most famous - or infamous - example: former Gov. Mario Cuomo's sale of Attica prison to a semi-independent state agency in 1991 to raise $200 million. Many critics noted that the bond sale cost the state hundreds of millions extra over the next few years.

"One gets a little concerned when 'selling off state assets' and 'budget deficits' get mentioned in the same sentence," said Elizabeth Lynam, a state policy expert with the Citizens Budget Commission.

"If it's used to close a budget gap, it's a one-shot. It's doesn't help you in the long run. It's a fiscal gimmick."

Mayor Bloomberg last night praised Paterson's effort "to tackle the serious problems we face" this year.

"The governor demonstrated that he is ready to stand up to the interest groups that will no doubt protest before the State House, just as they took to the steps of City Hall earlier this year," Bloomberg said.

[Soldier4Christ]

I wonder who is going to buy all of this?   

[Soldier4Christ]

Bush set to lift ban on HIV-positive foreign visitors
$48 billion AIDS relief bill will lift law targeting tourists, immigrants

President Bush appears poised to sign into law a multibillion-dollar AIDS relief bill that will lift a long-standing ban on HIV-positive foreign visitors and immigrants.

The U.S. Senate and House voted to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to remove a statutory ban on foreign visitors and immigrants infected with HIV. Bush has said publicly that he plans to sign the $48 billion AIDS bill, also known as the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, this week.

John Nechman, a Houston immigration lawyer who specializes in immigration cases involving HIV-positive clients and has lobbied for changes in the law, called the ban's removal significant and symbolic.

"It's kind of like the homosexual conduct statute that existed forever," Nechman said. "It stigmatized gay and lesbian people so much by its very existence, even if it wasn't enforced. This law being in immigration code as the only disease that was listed as an excludable disease was sort of that same stigma. It came about at a time when people feared that HIV could be contracted by sneezing in a room or from mosquitoes."

The ban was enacted in 1987 and amounts to one of the world's most restrictive policies for dealing with HIV-infected immigrants and travelers. Under U.S. law, foreigners with HIV are not permitted to immigrate to the U.S. — or even visit temporarily — unless they qualify for narrowly defined waivers.

Misunderstanding, hysteria
The U.S. remains one of only 12 countries that bar the admission of those with HIV.

"In the early days, it was a bit easier to understand why the ban was in effect," said Dr. Mark Kline, head of retrovirology at the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston and director of the school's AIDS International Training and Research Program. "There was a substantial amount of misunderstanding and hysteria associated with the evolving epidemic. Now, we're 20 years later, and we know definitely that the virus is not passed from person to person in any casual way."

The House voted on Thursday 303-115 to approve a bill that would reauthorize the AIDS relief package through 2013. The Senate version of the bill passed July 16 on an 80-16 vote.

Rep. Lamar Smith, R-San Antonio, circulated a letter dated July 23 to his colleagues before the House voted on the bill, urging them to oppose lifting the ban. His spokeswoman, Kim Smith, could not be reached for comment on Tuesday.

"Allowing thousands of aliens with HIV/AIDS into the U.S. inevitably will threaten the health and lives of Americans," he wrote. "Why should we take this risk?"

Bush has said he will sign the bill, but that does not remove all of the barriers for HIV-positive tourists and would-be immigrants. It will then fall to Health and Human Services to decide whether HIV should remain on the list of diseases that bar entry to the U.S.

HHS has discretion to determine what constitutes "communicable diseases of public health significance" that would bar a noncitizen from entering the U.S. The agency now lists eight diseases — including HIV, tuberculosis, leprosy and gonorrhea — as basis for denying admission to the U.S. as a tourist or immigrant.

A spokeswoman at the HHS press office in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday referred comment to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC spokeswoman Christine Pearson said she could not comment since the AIDS bill has not yet been signed and is "pending legislation."

Rachel B. Tiven, executive director of Immigration Equality, a New York organization that has lobbied for repeal of the ban, said it is difficult to predict HHS' actions.

"We're reluctant to read the tea leaves too aggressively, but we're certainly optimistic that HHS will act," she said, calling Congress' actions "an incredible advance."

In 2007, 938 immigration applicants were denied admission to the U.S. because they had a communicable disease, according to U.S. State Department statistics. However, of those applicants, 478 were later allowed entry after receiving waivers from the federal government. State Department officials say there's no breakdown of the applicants' diseases available.

The U.S. does not require HIV tests for all foreign visitors — only for people planning to immigrate permanently. However, short-term visitors are asked in the visa application process whether they have a communicable disease.

'A positive message'
Kelly McCann, CEO of AIDS Foundation Houston, said the ban hurt attendance at international AIDS conferences hosted in the U.S. in recent years and called its lifting overdue.

News of plans to lift the ban coincides with the International AIDS Conference, which starts Sunday in Mexico City.

"I think it's a very positive message to the world that the president is sending — that there is no reason to discriminate against people soley on the basis of their HIV status," Kline said.

[HisDaughter]

Reminds of an old Merle Haggard song..."Swingin' Doors".

[Soldier4Christ]

... and them doors are a swingin fast.

[nChrist]

If the liberal idiots get their way on forced gay education of children and other measures, I wonder how long it would take to increase AIDS and other dreaded diseases by 500% or more. If one thinks about everything happening, it's INSANE AND EVIL. Sex is becoming MANDATORY PUBLIC and Christian morals are becoming MANDATORY PRIVATE! The end result of death and suffering isn't an issue worthy of considering. By the way, I'm talking about DEATH AND SUFFERING in this short life. I must also add that this self-imposed death and suffering is EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE. WHAT LEADS UP TO THIS DEATH AND SUFFERING IS ALSO DESTRUCTIVE TO EVERY FACET OF OUR SOCIETY! THERE ARE NO PROS TO CONSIDER - JUST CONS! Again, this is simply INSANE AND EVIL! We don't even make NORMAL sex public, so why should we make PERVERTED sex public. Sex isn't supposed to be PUBLIC - NORMAL OR PERVERTED!

[HisDaughter]

I've posted the responses I've gotten from my senators to emails I had written, I think.  Here is the one I just received from my congressman.
What an idiot....


Dear Yvette:

Thank you for contacting me with your concerns about rising gas prices. I appreciate hearing from you about this important issue.

 

With oil well over $100 per barrel and gas prices averaging over $4 a gallon, I am very concerned that consumers are suffering both at the pump and at the grocery store. Food prices are continuing to rise, largely due to increased transportation and fertilization costs. For this reason, I recently voted for HR 6022, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) Fill Suspension and Consumer Protect Act, which passed the House and Senate overwhelmingly and was signed into law by President Bush. This legislation will temporarily suspend oil shipments to the SPR, which is currently 97% full, through the end of the year. It is estimated that the increased supply available on the American market from suspending shipment to the SPR could bring gas prices down by as much as 24 cents a gallon.

 

At the same time, I do not think that suspending SPR deliveries will solve our problems, nor can it replace long-term strategies to bring down gas prices. Accordingly, I have supported a number of different approaches that have been passed through the U.S. House of Representatives this Congress, including legislation to increase fuel efficiency standards for automobiles, crack down on price gouging and manipulation in the oil markets, and increase investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. I do not, however, support drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). The limited resources that might be extracted from these lands, and the minimal impact that it might have on prices, cannot compare to the potentially catastrophic environmental effects of drilling. We cannot drill our way to energy independence and any attempt to do so seriously contradicts our responsibly combat global warming.

 As the 110th Congress progresses, I will keep your remarks in mind and will continue to advocate for policies that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, bring down gas prices, and reduce our nation's carbon footprint.

(As soon as we get your big clodhoppers out of the way maybe we can make some progress on real issues.)

[Soldier4Christ]

The suspension of the SPR had no effect at all on the price of oil/gas as was evidenced by the market. It was when President Bush rescinded the Executive Order on drilling that we saw a slight reduction in the prices. This action by the President was just the first step that needs to be taken in order for drilling to start. We can see though that it did have an effect and that effect will be even greater if the House gets off their do-nothings and remove the drilling ban completely. These Senators and Representatives like this one need to stop pandering to the incorrect actions and information put out by environmentalists and do the job they were elected to do in order for that to happen.