Taro T Posted June 21, 2006 Share Posted June 21, 2006 CFIUS completed only a 31 day review. God forbid Government do anything efficiently. The law says they can take 45 days. Darn it, I want them drinking coffee for the next 2 weeks and sitting on their hands. How dare they perform a function in only 2/3's the allotted time. Given the weight of these issues, Congress must act to seriously review CFIUS' approval of the Dubai Ports World sale. I support my colleagues who have called for a halt of the sale, and look forward to taking an important role in scrutinizing the transaction. As legislation on this issue moves forward, I will keep your views in mind. If you have any questions or concerns in the future regarding this or any other legislative issue, please do not hesitate to contact me. For more information on my work for the people of Pennsylvania's 8th Congressional district, please visit my website at www.fitzpatrick.house.gov. 710959[/snapback] Translated: thank you for bothering me, now go f' off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 Moving at the speed of government, my other Senator (Spector) decided to get around to responding to my e-mail: Dear Mr. Crippen : Thank you for contacting my office regarding your views on security at U.S. port facilities. I appreciate you taking the time to bring your thoughts on this matter to my attention. U.S. port facilities play an integral role in maintaining both a robust and healthy economy as well as our ability to prosecute the Global War on Terror. The economic consequences of a maritime attack would be severe, as a March 2006 Congressional Budget Office study estimated that the Gross Domestic Product would be reduced by as much as $150 million per day if a single major port were forced to shut-down for a one-week period. A terrorist attack on one of our nation's ports could also hinder our ability to provide reliable shipments of military supplies to troops in the field. For these reasons, I believe it is vital that we take the steps necessary to ensure the security of our nation's ports. The U.S. Coast Guard is the lead federal agency in charge of maritime homeland security. Under the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, the Coast Guard has the responsibility to protect vessels and harbors from subversive acts. The Coast Guard approves and works to ensure that all port users comply with comprehensive security plans developed by port facility operators. Additionally, the Coast Guard utilizes 96-hour Notice of Arrival requirements for inbound ships to identify high-risk vessels and board them, if necessary, to ensure security compliance prior to entering a harbor. Additionally, the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) inspects some pre-screened U.S.-bound containers at their ports of loading and offers importers expedited processing of cargo if they comply with CBP measures for securing their entire supply chain. One of the most challenging tasks of Congress is to ensure that these agencies and their programs receive adequate funding. To this end, I support appropriation of $400 million in fiscal year 2007 for the Port Security Grant Program. Ports apply directly to the Department of Homeland Security through this competitive grant program to fund security enhancements at their facilities. This level of funding would represent a significant increase over the fiscal year 2006 amount of $175 million. Additionally, in light of the recent controversy surrounding foreign investment in U.S. port facilities, I look forward to working with my colleagues in Congress to ensure that all acquisitions that could potentially affect security at ports and other areas vital to our national security are adequately assessed. There is no higher priority for the federal government than the defense of our nation. Thank you again for contacting me. The concerns of my constituents are of great importance to me, and I rely on you and other Pennsylvanians to inform me of your views. Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact my office or visit my website at http://specter.senate.gov . Sincerely, Arlen Specter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 Moving at the speed of government, my other Senator (Spector) decided to get around to responding to my e-mail: 809258[/snapback] He did a pretty good job of not answering your letter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 Moving at the speed of government, my other Senator (Spector) decided to get around to responding to my e-mail: 809258[/snapback] Wow, less than 5 months and 500 words to say absolutely nothing. That has to be close to a congresscritter record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 He did a pretty good job of not answering your letter. 809268[/snapback] I should send my Congresscritters my plan for Social Security reform to see how they respond. Since it is close to election time for two of them, I should get a speedy response. Specter is not up for re-election, so I imagine I will see a response sometime in 2009. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadDad Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 We need people to suck because we don't know how to live with people who don't suck. Once someone doesn't suck, they become great, and once someone becomes great, everyone climbs over each other to tear them down and make them suck again. 622777[/snapback] Bingo!!!! Except I think that Dubya has always sucked. He didn't need to be torn down. In general your point is right on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 Specter is not up for re-election, so I imagine I will see a response sometime in 2009. 809270[/snapback] Ah, ever the eternal optimist. That's one of the reasons why I respect you Ken! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 Wow, less than 5 months and 500 words to say absolutely nothing. That has to be close to a congresscritter record. 809269[/snapback] A record? I hardly doubt it. Do these guys go to a special school to be able to do this. Because they are all the same. It's pretty freaky. They're like robotrons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 A record? I hardly doubt it. Do these guys go to a special school to be able to do this. Because they are all the same. It's pretty freaky. They're like robotrons. 810572[/snapback] I can say less in MORE words! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 Ah, ever the eternal optimist. That's one of the reasons why I respect you Ken! 810402[/snapback] Maybe realist is a better term... ?? Call me arrogant... Why should he respond?... You can't please everyone, so blow some things off... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 Maybe realist is a better term... ?? Call me arrogant... Why should he respond?... You can't please everyone, so blow some things off... 811253[/snapback] because he wants your vote? especially Ken's, didn't you know that his vote counts for 100. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 I can say less in MORE words! 811250[/snapback] Well if you REALLY try hard. But it's rare for those from capitol hill to be able to do so so succinctly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts