Georgia’s own Jimmy Carter is set to meet with the leader of Hamas, Khaled Mashaal. It’s shocking and sad when someone who once led our great Nation is taking tea time with someone who’s aided and abetted those who’d like to do us harm.Here’s a piece in the Chicago Tribune to give you all the details.�
The House Republican Conference has a great compilation of some of the articles supporting the passage of the Colombia Free Trade Agreement (see them here).A personal favorite of our office is Edward Schumacher-Matos’ piece in today’s Boston Globe.He writes: “The agreement, which President Bush sent this week to Congress for an up or down vote, essentially makes permanent the trade preferences that Colombia has had for 17 years. What is new is that the treaty opens the Colombian market to US exports. “So it’s supposed to hurt American jobs if we allow U.S. exports to play on a level playing field with the goods we import from Colombia? Somehow that just doesn’t make sense.To read the full article, click here.
The Matson’s World cartoon in today’s Roll Call says it all…
This morning, the House Education and Labor Committee is marking up H.R. 5522 which would require OSHA to change its combustible dust regualtions within 90 days of its enactment.
As you may know, it was a combustible dust explosion that caused the February 7th explosion at the old Savannah Foods (now known as Imperial Sugar). The investigation is still ongoing as to exactly why the dust exploded and as Jack has said before, we just don’t know what was behind the cause of the tragedy.
Two letters have been sent to Chairman George Miller and Ranking Member Buck McKeon from outside groups in opposition to this bill. While we don’t know how what the bill will look like coming out of the committee, these letters highlight the risks of a one size fits all approach to the issue.
United States Chamber of Commerce Letter on HR 5522
OSHA Fairness Coaltion Letter on HR 5522
Check back later for more information.
We’ve been watching General Petraeus and David Crocker all day but during the break, found this great article in today’s Los Angeles Times by Max Boot.
In the article, Boot debunks many of the assertions of opponents to the Iraq war. Most notably, however, he concludes the article with this:
“The question that opponents of the war effort have to answer is: Will Iraq’s problems become better or worse if we pull our troops out? Few who have spent any time in Iraq doubt that an American withdrawal would trigger chaos that would make the recent fighting in Basra look like a picnic. That would be not only a terrible stain on our honor (we might be indirectly responsible for genocide) but a significant strategic setback because it could destabilize the entire region.
“Victory — defined as a democratic state that does not oppress its own people, provide a haven for terrorists, proliferate weapons of mass destruction or threaten its neighbors — remains eminently achievable if we listen to the best advice of Petraeus and Crocker and resist the urge to pull our troops out too fast. If we ignore their warnings and head for the exits, we are assured of the worst military defeat in U.S. history and a major victory for Shiite and Sunni extremists who will continue to attack us in the future.”
To read the full article, click here.
General David Petraeus is testifying right now before the Senate Armed Services Committee. In his opening statement, he identified three important factors contributing to the progress in Iraq.
The surge
“First…the impact of increased numbers of Coalition and Iraqi Forces. You are well aware of the U.S. surge. Less recognized is that Iraq has also conducted a surge, adding well over 100,000 additional soldiers and police to the ranks of its security forces in 2007 and slowly increasing its capability to deploy and employ these forces”
Cooperation
“the employment of Coalition and Iraqi Forces in the conduct of counterinsurgency operations across the country, deployed together to safeguard the Iraqi people, to pursue Al Qaeda-Iraq, to combat criminals and militia extremists, to foster local reconciliation, and to enable political and economic progress.”
Iraqi citizens joining the fight
“Another important factor has been the attitudinal shift among certain elements of the Iraqi population. Since the first Sunni “Awakening” in late 2006, Sunni communities in Iraq increasingly have rejected AQI’s indiscriminate violence and extremist ideology. These communities also recognized that they could not share in Iraq’s bounty if they didn’t participate in the political arena. Over time, Awakenings have prompted tens of thousands of Iraqis—some, former insurgents—to contribute to local security as so-called “Sons of Iraq.” With their assistance and with relentless pursuit of Al Qaeda-Iraq, the threat posed by AQI—while still lethal and substantial—has been reduced significantly.”
John Fund’s piece in the Wall Street Journal today show’s just what the Colombia Free Trade agreement means to our future:
“If Congress rejects it, the loss wouldn’t be just measured in dollors or pesos. It could have profound geopolitical effects that would hurt the U.S.
“Colombia is a democratic ally of the U.S. in a tough neighborhood. Alvaro Uribe, its president, has been battling a left-wing insurgency that has used kidnapping, murder and drug trafficking in an attempt to overthrow his government. An impressive body of evidence shows the insurgents, known as the FARC, have been encouraged and financed by Venezuela’s strongman, Hugo Chavez. Mr. Chavez, who already has allies in charge of Bolivia, Ecuador, and Nicaragua, would love to extend his influence in Latin America.”
He also does a good job of countering the tired Democrat attacks on the agreement.
“…the Uribe government has made great strides in reducing violence in Colombia. Since 2001, the number of kidnappings has dropped by over 80%, acts of terror are down over 75%, and the murder rate associated with trade unionists is down almost 80%.”
“The simple truth is that the opposition to the trade agreement–from the Democratic presidential contenders to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi–has nothing to do with reality. Rep. Charles Rangel, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, admitted as much recently: ‘It’s not the substance on the ground–it’s the politics in the air.’”
To read the full article, click here.
Sen. Kay Bailey-Hutchison has a great op-ed piece in today’s Dallas Morning News about why we shouldn’t allow the 2003 tax cuts to expire.
In her words:
“Let’s remember that those tax cuts brought historic reductions to individual tax rates, death taxes, capital gains taxes and taxes levied on small businesses. They have provided relief to American families by increasing the child tax credit from $600 to $1,000 per child and reducing the marriage penalty by doubling the standard deduction.
“But in 2010, those tax cuts, which spurred growth and created 8.1 million jobs, are set to expire. If they are allowed to expire, we will witness the largest tax increase in American history. Texans would shoulder an average $2,381 increase.
“In light of these alarming figures, there is no justification for raising taxes at this time. Such an increase would only nullify the benefits of Congress’ recent economic stimulus package. Through this stimulus package, qualifying taxpayers who file a 2007 return may expect to receive rebate checks between May and July of up to $600 for individuals and up to $1,200 for married couples filing jointly. Millions of retirees, veterans and low-income workers may also receive a stimulus payment.”
To read the full article, click here.
Henry Kissinger has a great article this week entitled “The Three Revolutions”. In it, Kissinger describes the three major shifts in world politics we currently face.
On the disenchantment with America’s foreign policy and shifts in Europe:
“Conventional wisdom holds that disenchantment with President Bush’s alleged unilateralism is at the heart of European-American disagreements. But it will become apparent soon after the change of administrations that the principal difference between the two sides of the Atlantic is that America is still a traditional nation-state whose people respond to calls for sacrifices on behalf of a much wider definition of the national interest than Europe’s definition.”
On Jihadist Islam and the war on terror:
“Jihadist Islam rejects national sovereignty based on secular state models; it seeks to extend its reach to wherever significant populations profess the Muslim faith. Since neither the international system nor the internal structure of existing states has legitimacy in Islamist eyes, its ideology leaves little room for Western notions of negotiation or equilibrium in a region of vital interest to the security and well-being of the industrial states. That struggle is endemic; we do not have the option of withdrawal. We can retreat from any one place, such as Iraq, but only to be obliged to resist from new positions, probably more disadvantageously.”
On the growth in power of Asian nation states:
“These transformations take place against the backdrop of a third trend, a shift in the center of gravity of international affairs from the Atlantic to the Pacific and Indian Oceans. Paradoxically, this redistribution of power is to a part of the world where nations still possess the characteristics of traditional European states. The major states of Asia — China, Japan, India and, in time, possibly Indonesia — view each other the way participants in the European balance of power did, as inherent competitors even when they occasionally participate in cooperative ventures.”
Kissinger concludes:
“No previous generation has had to deal with different revolutions occurring simultaneously in separate parts of the world. The quest for a single, all-inclusive remedy is chimerical. In a world in which the sole superpower is a proponent of the prerogatives of the traditional nation-state, where Europe is stuck in halfway status, where the Middle East does not fit the nation-state model and faces a religiously motivated revolution, and where the nations of South and East Asia still practice the balance of power, what is the nature of the international order that can accommodate these different perspectives? What should be the role of Russia, which is affirming a notion of sovereignty comparable to America’s and a strategic concept of the balance of power similar to Asia’s? Are existing international organizations adequate for this purpose? What goals can America realistically set for itself and the world community? Is the internal transformation of major countries an attainable goal? What objectives must be sought in concert, and what are the extreme circumstances that would justify unilateral action?
“This is the kind of debate we need, not focus-group-driven slogans designed to grab headlines.”
What are your thoughts?
Bob Novak’s weekly article details the way Democrats try to skirt around guaranteeing Americans their Second Amendment rights. In the article, Novak discusses Barack Obama’s avoidance of taking a stand against D.C.’s gun ban for fear that he’ll either anger Democrats or show the American people his real stance. For more on that, read the article.
Meanwhile, Novak highlights something we see every day on the hill:
“That is a dance of many Democrats, revealed by my private conversations with the party’s strategists. As urban liberals, they reject constitutional protection for gun owners. As campaign managers, they want to avoid re-enacting the fate of many Democratic candidates who lost elections because of gun control advocacy. The party’s House leadership last year pulled off the floor a bill for a District of Columbia congressional seat in order to save Democratic members from having to vote on a Republican amendment against the D.C. gun law.”
Which is it? Do you want to follow your heart and block our Second Amendment rights or would you rather win elections?
President Bush has sent the Colombia Free Trade Agreement to Congress. As we have seen over and over again, free trade agreements are highly beneficial to the health of our Nation’s economy. According to statistics provided by the Department of Commerce, more than 90% of Colombia’s exports enter the U.S. duty free while less than 10% of U.S. exports are given the same treatment in Colombia. For information on how the agreement would impact Georgia, check out these fact sheets:
Also here’s a fact sheet from the White House on how the agreement is essential to our national security.
From the AP:
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush on Monday signed a letter sending Congress a controversial free trade agreement with Colombia — a move that will force lawmakers to vote within 90 days.
The agreement, which would tear down trade barriers between the two nations, is heavily opposed by Democrats in Congress.
Democrats contend that Colombia has not done enough to halt violence, protect labor activists and demobilize paramilitary organizations. The president disagrees, saying Colombia has addressed the issues.
“The need for this agreement is too urgent, the stakes for our national security are too high to allow this year to end without a vote,” Bush said.
Bush signed a document to transmit the trade agreement to Congress, but Congress won’t formally receive it until lawmakers return on Tuesday. Bush’s action will force Congress to take up the proposal under a fast-track process that requires votes within 90 days. Officials said Bush is acting now in order to force a vote before Congress leaves in the fall for the campaign season.
“If Congress fails to approve this agreement, it would not only abandon a brave ally, it would send a signal throughout the region that America cannot be counted on to support its friends,” Bush said.
Bush, who has staked out free trade as one of his top legacies, is also hoping to win congressional approval before he leaves office on pending free trade agreements with Panama and South Korea.
Bush’s action was coming one day after Mark Penn quit as Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s chief campaign strategist after it was reported that he had met with Colombia’s ambassador to the United States to discuss the free trade agreement, which Clinton opposes.
Today’s CongressDaily AM has a piece about how Democrat leadership is trying to block Republican efforts to vote on an immigration reform package offered by Democrat Heath Shuler.
According to the article:
Sources in the Democratic leadership said the majority leaders want to curtail Republican efforts to forace a vote on an immigration enforcement bill from Rep. Heath Shuler, D-N.C., that would make E-verify, a voluntary electronic verification program, madatory for all U.S. employers within four years.
As you may recall, Jack led the fight last year to require all those contracting with the Federal government to use E-verify. Then, too, Democrats blocked the measure from final passage during closed-door deal making on last year’s appropriations bills.
The article continues:
House Democrats are concerned that another 10 rank-and-file lawmakers, likely Blue Dog Coalition members, will sign the petition. With that, Republicans could easily round up the few in their party who have not signed on and ensure that the measure comes to the floor.
Senior Democratic leadership and rank-and-file aides said that the set of hearings, agreed to in a closed door meeting with Pelosi last week, is designed to dissuade Democrats from signing the discharge petition.
Are they serious? Perhaps in their minds there’s no need to act when you can hold a hearing and issue a press release.
For more information on what Jack’s doing about illegal immigration, click here.
Fred Kagen with AEI has a great piece tracking the progress in Iraq. According to his report, the Iraqi government has met 12 of the 18 benchmarks established by Congress.
Kagen writes:
“As the tally below shows, the Government of Iraq has now met 12 out of the original 18 benchmarks set for it, including four out of the six key legislative benchmarks. It has made substantial progress on five more, and only one remains truly stalled. One can argue about the scoring of this or that benchmark, but the overall picture is very clear: before the surge began, the Iraqi Government had accomplished none of the benchmarks and was on the way to accomplishing very few. As the surge winds down, it has accomplished around two-thirds of them and is moving ahead on almost all of the remainder. To say in the face of these facts that Iraq has made “little” or “no” political progress is simply false-to-fact.“
To view the full report, click here.
The Coastal Courier is reporting that the Pentagon has named Fort Stewart’s new commander.
According to the report:
Maj. Gen. Anthony A. Cucolo III will be the next commanding general of Fort Stewart and the Third Infantry Division, the Department of Defense announced Thursday.
Cucolo will succeed Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, whose two-year tour of duty ends this summer.
Cucolo will be coming to Fort Stewart from the Pentagon where he is chief of public affairs for the Army.
The new commander has served at Fort Stewart before. He was a staff officer and then a company commander here from 1985 to 1988. Cucolo has also led a brigade of the 3rd ID. From 1999 to 2001 he was commander of the 3rd ID’s 3rd Brigade which is stationed at Fort Benning.
A mid-summer change-of command ceremony is expected.
