Thursday, March 09, 2006


Kelly Against Port Security Before She Was For It


While Rep. Sue Kelly attempted to bolster her port security credentials by coming out against the plan for a Dubai company to control New York’s ports, Take19 took her to task today for voting against increased port security funding and tighter standards of securing the nation’s ports just last year.

"If Kelly cares so much about securing the ports, why didn’t she support the amendment HR 1817?" asked Take19 spokesperson Michael Morey. "Port security is the gaping hole in our national security. When Sue Kelly had a chance to do something about it – she said no."

“It’s nice that Sue Kelly has jumped on the bandwagon this election cycle," said Take19 member Susan Spear, “But the truth is that when it really counted, Sue Kelly let her constituents down by voting against increased funding and standards for securing our ports. She needs to explain that discrepancy to the voters.”

Kelly voted last year against an amendment [HR 1817, Roll Call #187, 5/18/05] that would have increased port security funding and tightened security standards at the port; Kelly voted instead for the White House’s plan that included less money and excluded the standards. Specifically:

• The Homeland Security Authorization proposal that Kelly voted against would have committed $41 billion to securing the nation from terrorist threats - $6.9 billion more than the President’s budget which Kelly supported.

• The proposal Kelly opposed called for an additional $400 million in funding for port security, including $13 million to double the number of new overseas port inspectors provided for in the President’s budget.

• The proposal addressed the holes in securing the nation’s ports by requiring the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to develop container security standards, integrate container security pilot projects, and examine ways to integrate container inspection equipment and data. Currently DHS has three very similar container security pilot projects that are not coordinated in any fashion, resulting in wasted money and redundant efforts.

• Finally, the plan required DHS to conduct a study of the risk factors associated with the port of Miami and ports in the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean, including the U.S. Virgin Islands.

This alternative plan, voted against by Kelly, failed 196-230. [HR 1817, Roll Call #187, 5/18/05; Committee on Homeland Security Minority Office.

"It appears Sue Kelly does what she's told to by her right-wing bosses," said Audrey Molsky, Take19 member and small business owner from Dutchess County. "We deserve a member of Congress who will represent our interests and not the
interests of greedy corporations and corrupt lobbyists."

All her recent Press Releases and Big Talk about how she is against the Dubai Port Deal is just so much political cover.

Her histroy on this issue is clear. Sue Kelly has never had the security of this country as a top priority.

First of all, she voted for the invasion of Iraq which meant forgetting about getting the people who executed the 9/11 attack and allowing them to regroup. Statistics and experts show that this invasion has made the US and the world LESS SAFE from terrorists' attacks, and has done nothing but recruited more people for the battle against the US.

Second, she has consistently voted AGAINST funding for first responders and port security. The record is there and clearly speaks for itself.

BUT, she's consistent in that those tax cuts for the wealthy during a time of war are sacred.

I bet if the Dems hadn't made such a stink about the Dubai Deal, we wouldn't have heard a peep from Sockpuppet Sue about it.
Sue Kelly probably never even read the original legislation and just did what she was told to do. Can anyone point to any issue where Sue kelly has stood up forcefully and took a stand against her right-wing leadership? Has she ever stood up to her masters and challenged them on something? Has she ever publicly challenged them? that would demonstrate some leadership. We can vote for a follower or we can vote for a leader. Why does this district continue to sell itself short with a back-bencher like Sue?
From the NY Times Editorial Board:

"We keep hearing that the Republicans in Congress are in revolt against the president.

Some rebellion. . . .

The idea that a happy few are charging the White House ramparts is ridiculous. Republican lawmakers don't just turn a blind eye when they learn that the president is making profoundly bad choices, like cutting constitutional corners, abrogating treaties and even breaking the law. They actually legalize the president's misdeeds.

Take domestic spying, held up as another area of Republican revolt. The program violates the law. Congress knows it. The public knows it. Even President Bush knows it. (He just says the law doesn't apply to him.) In response, the Capitol Hill rebels are boldly refusing to investigate the program -- or any other warrantless spying that is going on. They are trying to rewrite the law to legalize warrantless spying. And meanwhile, they've created new subcommittees to help the president go on defying the law. . . .

Congressional and White House negotiators . . . watered down the new anti-torture law, which Mr. Bush said did not really apply to him anyway. And they passed another law actually encouraging the abuse of prisoners by allowing the use of coerced evidence at hearings on the prisoners' status. . . .

And all this does not even include the act of open rebellion by which the Senate is helping the White House cover up the hyping of intelligence on Iraq."
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?