Post a New Topic
McNerney's veterans care bill becomes law
Original post made
on May 6, 2010
A bill said to improve health care for veterans has been signed into law as part of the Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act. Signed by Congressman Jerry McNerney (11th District), the legislation would help veterans who have suffered traumatic brain injuries.
Read the full story here Web Link
posted Thursday, May 6, 2010, 9:32 AM
Posted by Rae
a resident of Mohr Park
on May 10, 2010 at 11:41 am
First of all, let me just stop a moment to be thankful that I have so many more important things going on in my life, that sitting on a forum waiting to answer your next taunt doesn't even rank. That said, let me take just a couple of minutes from my lunch period to once again share my opinion with you.
I have, in a couple of threads, provided a web reference for Rep McNerney's sponsored and co-sponsored bills, amendments and resolutions in the 111th Congress. As you may or may not know, and I expect you do from your taunting, unless you are following a bill from its initial readings, through the committee process in the originating house of Congress, out of committee to the floor, and then if passed, through the same process in the other house of Congress where it's name is changed and it may be die, be passed, amended and/or returned to the originating house. Frankly, it's amazing that any bills are passed into law!
The Library of Congress Thomas database contains the official information that can be used to track bills, amendments and resolutions up to a point. We are able to follow the trail and track the components of the Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2010 only by knowing what the Senate renamed the bill, what number it was assigned, and by then reading the actual bill for the information that was included in the House bills.
For example, we know that HR1335 and HR2898 sponsored by Rep Halvorson (R-IL) were included in the Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2010, just as was Rep McNerney's HR1456. Yet, if you check Thomas, the status on three bills is shown as being forwarded to Committee.
So, what I will say, and continue to say about Rep McNerney is that once elected in 2007 he put his campaign priorities into action as he sought and was assigned to the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Subcommittee on Health and the Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet, and the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment.
If you check his history in both the 110th and 111th Congresses (see my last paragraph) you will find that in the bills and amendments he has sponsored (i.e. written) are bills on, for example, HR700 which amended the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to extend the pilot program for alternative water source projects (passed House), and HR2304 which directed the Secretary of Energy to conduct a program of research, development, demonstration, and commercial application for geothermal energy, and for other purposes (was incorporated in HR3221 which became law). If an important bill timed out in the 110th Congress, Rep McNerney didn't give up - he reintroduced it in the 111th - like his veteran's bill on catastrophic brain injury which he introduced as HR2201 in 110, reintroduced as HR1456 in 111 and was incorporated in the Senate bill S.1963 which is the topic of this thread.
He currently has another soldier's bill in Committee, HR4440 which timed out as HR6686 in the 110th. This bill would "amend title 37, United States Code, to increase the maximum monthly rate for the military special pay known as hostile fire pay, imminent danger pay, or hazardous duty pay, to increase the maximum monthly rate for the family separation allowance paid to deployed members of the Armed Forces, and to increase other special and incentive pays to recognize the service of members of the Armed Forces and encourage recruitment and retention." Considering we're at war on two fronts, this seems like a bill that both Republicans and Democrats would get behind. Why is it then, that there is no, let me repeat that, *no* co-sponsorship from any Republican representative in this country? Where's that support for our military who are putting their lives on the line under fire, many of whom are coming home with catastrophic injuries? Well, it's certainly not on the Republican side of the House.
I need to run, but let me leave the following reference for you, or anyone, who would like to see what's going on in Congress.
This is the website for the Library of Congress Thomas database, sorted by Congressional member in the 111th Congress. As you scroll down the list you can select and see, by Congressional member, what bills, resolutions and amendments each has sponsored and co-sponsored. You can do this for each session of Congress by selecting, at the top of the page, the Congressional session number. I've always found it to be an eye-opener. Once you've done your research, "jimf01", please come back and tell me which Republican representative from our state has put as much effort into fulfilling their campaign priorities as Rep McNerney has. Web Link
Posted by Rae
a resident of Mohr Park
on May 10, 2010 at 5:18 pm
WOW . . . so our military, veterans and clean energy are "pet issues"?
Not counting other Coalition forces, there have been 4,397 Americans killed in Iraq and 1,049 in Afghanistan. There have been 31,790 wounded in Iraq and 5,677 in Afghanistan. Because modern medicine is so much better than in the last war, more catastrophically wounded soldiers are coming home than we've ever seen, stretching not only the VA, but their family resources as well. And you consider those who have been put their life on the line every day, been wounded or killed in one of the wars to be a "pet issue"?
We are in the middle of one of the worst environmental disasters ever seen, with no end in sight. Unregulated big oil has been allowed to put their rigs in place in part because they said there were appropriate safety functions that would prevent the kind of disaster we're now seeing. Well, big oil was so busy making billions in the revered Republican/Tea Party "free market", that I guess they forgot they had no such safety precautions in place. And clean energy that would get us off of our oil dependence is a "pet issue"?
Well, I say thank goodness for Rep McNerney and his "pet issues"!!
I also see by your response that you were unable to come up with a Republican to hold up as a better example of a politician working for their District, other than Mr. Harmer, who, in his "search of a place to serve" can't seem to decide exactly which Congressional District in the United States he wants to elect him.
It's very clear why you, as a Tea Party Nation enthusiast, like Mr. Harmer so much he's become quite good at repeating Tea party rhetoric over and over and over. Well, except for his statement on where he ranks his being an American.
As you know, in Mr. Harmer's Dec 09 interview with "The Mormon Times" he stated "he considers himself a Christian first, an American second, a conservative third and finally, a Republican. Web Link
You folks in the Tea Party movement have made it pretty clear that you have a very narrow view of who a "true American patriot" is. I'm surprised that someone who puts being an American second and a conservative third in their list of attributes is a Tea Party poster boy, but, as you said in your thread "TEA Party Power - how you can help keep it going!" discussing Mr. Harmer's candidacy, you were OK with it. Web Link
I wonder, however, if you and Mr. Harmer's other Tea Party supporters would be just as OK with his description of himself if he'd said he was "a Mormon first and an American second," or "a Jew first and an American second", or how about "Hindi first and an American second", or maybe "a Muslim first and an American second"? If it's OK with you that a candidate put his or her religion above being an American, none of those scenarios should bother you . . . so how come there's so much effort in the Tea Party movement to "discredit" Pres. Obama as a Muslim? According to you, it's OK, right??
Personally, I will never knowingly support a candidate who puts their religion ahead of being an American no matter what that religion is. We have separation of church and state for a very good reason, and I don't want a politician making laws for me based on his or her religious beliefs. There's already too much of that going around on the far right. I also will not support a politician who has made it quite clear that his only position on the many issues facing us in CD11 is a very singular Tea Party position leaving me to believe that the only constituents he would support in CD11 are those "true American patriots" of the Tea Party . . . that is, of course, if they're "Christian" first . . .
Oh yeah, it's very clear that our military, veterans and clean energy certainly won't be "pet issues" for Mr. Harmer.