SCHotline Press Releases

An unprecedented initiative will gather South Carolina’s nearly 250 elected African-American women to chart a united front against the inequity-fueled issues that plague the state’s communities.

“I am proud to be a part of this group of women, who want to move beyond the rhetoric and deal with the realities of the communities we serve,” said Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter (D-Orangeburg). “I’m into action. I’m tired of talking about stuff.”

The Circle of Influence Leadership Summit, scheduled for December 2007, will bring together school board members, city and county leaders and state lawmakers. They will craft a statewide action plan to impact issues such as poverty, health-care accessibility and education.

Organizers will detail how the Leadership Summit is poised to impact public policy at a press conference Monday.

WHAT: The Circle of Influence Leadership Summit press conference

WHEN: 10:15 a.m. Monday, Oct. 1, 2007

WHERE: State House rotunda (Gervais Street), Columbia

The Circle of Influence initiative was founded by Columbia-based IMARA Woman magazine and is being co-sponsored by AARP.

“Participating in the Leadership Summit will assist policymakers to better serve the needs of their constituents – all South Carolinians – and help us, as elected leaders, to empower our communities,” said Wendy Brawley, IMARA Woman CEO and Richland 1 School Board Chairwoman. 

Those interested in participating in the summit should contact IMARA Woman magazine at (803) 252-0647.

-#####-

Florence, S.C.  – At 5 p.m. on Thursday, September 27, dozens of concerned citizens gathered at the South Florence High School to oppose Santee Cooper’s plans to build a dirty, pulverized coal plant along a fragile stretch of the Pee Dee River near Kingsburg, South Carolina.  The Army Corp of Engineering then held a “scoping” meeting to determine the parameters of an Environmental Impact Statement they will issue looking at the social, environmental and economic costs of the plant, as well as alternatives to building it.

Over 150 people attended the meeting and 41 gave public comments.  Of the speakers, three elected officials from the Pamplico/Johnsonville area spoke in favor, along with one member of the community. 37 spoke against.  At one point, a speaker asked whether any of the staff or board members of Santee Cooper were present and if they were, to please stand.  No one stood up.

The direct environmental impacts of the plant are monumental.  Each year, the plant will emit 300 pounds of mercury (a neurotoxin dangerous even in small quantities) and thousands of tons of smog and soot-forming pollutants.  The plant site will destroy a hundred acres of pristine wetlands and will draw millions of gallons of water from an already impaired water source.

“Santee Cooper’s so-called ‘cost analysis’ has a number of glaring omissions,” said Ann Stoeckman, Florence County resident and associate professor of biology at Francis Marion University.  “When we take into account the direct human health impact of this plant – the mercury contamination of the fish we catch and eat from the Pee Dee, the asthma and respiratory illnesses caused by coal dust from trains passing through Florence and other South Carolina towns – the true costs start to skyrocket.”

There is clear scientific evidence that soot and particulate matter emissions from pulverized coal plants like the one proposed by Santee Cooper put vulnerable populations at greater risk for heart and respiratory illnesses.  These diseases include asthma and other respiratory illnesses, as well as cardio-vascular and pulmonary diseases.

According to Susan Corbett, South Carolina Sierra Club Conservation Chair, “Santee Cooper’s own numbers show this plant will generate 7500 tons of soot forming sulfur dioxide and 900 tons of particulate matter every year. This is an area of the state with higher-than-average cancer rates. Almost 9% of our state’s children suffer from asthma.  How many more cancers and diseases will result from additional particulate matter being dumped in the air?”

Conservationists are challenging Santee Cooper’s claim that this plant uses the “best available technology,” pointing out that ultracritical coal-fired plants have lower emissions and burn more efficiently.  Indeed, as Coastal Conservation League’s North Coast Office Director Nancy Cave stated, “This proposed plant will be one of dirtiest plants that can be legally built today, emitting tons of CO2, SO2 and hundreds of pounds of mercury. We call on the Army Corp of Engineers to conduct a comprehensive study of the impacts of this plant to our air, water and human health and to study all alternatives including efficiency, which is the fastest, cheapest and cleanest fuel.”

“We expect the EIS study to go well beyond the very narrowly-defined state and federal air and water regulations to look at the true costs and impacts of this plant,” concluded John Ramsburgh, Project Director of Conservation Votes of South Carolina.  “Why are we importing 2.5 million tons of dirty coal annually to feed the plant, when we can invest in our own clean, renewable resources, which will provide energy we need without poisoning our communities?”

According to the American Lung Association, there are currently nearly 3000 children in Florence County who suffer from asthma, and the state pays $150 million every year to cover asthma costs for patients under 18 years of age.  Over 31,000 people in Florence County suffer from some form of cardio-vascular disease.

DETAILS:
WHAT:  Local citizens spoke out against Santee Cooper dirty coal plant
WHERE:  Parking lot of South Florence High School, 3200 South Irby Street, Florence
WHEN:  5-9 p.m., Thursday, September 27

Extends coverage to adults and families making over $80,000 a year, contains hidden earmarks, and allows benefits to illegal immigrants, stops innovative health opportunity accounts

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) made the following statement in response to the Democrat-controlled Senate using the States Children Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) reauthorization to pass a massive expansion of government-controlled healthcare.

“Congress should work to ensure every American has access to affordable private health insurance. Instead, the Democrats have hijacked a program for poor children to ram through a new entitlement to government-controlled health care for adults and upper-income families,” said Senator DeMint. “Democrats are using this program intended for poor children to allow benefits for illegal immigrants, create new earmarks, gives handouts to labor unions, and force millions off of high quality private insurance.  This large new entitlement will increase spending by billions of dollars and force higher taxes on working Americans.”

The Democrat SCHIP bill also specifically ended an innovative program for health opportunity accounts (HOAs) that provide Medicaid beneficiaries with money to use for health care expenses. South Carolina began one of the nation’s first HOA pilot programs earlier this year, but no other states will be permitted to participate. An amendment authored by Senator DeMint to restore the HOA pilot program was prevented from receiving a vote.

“This is a perfect example of how Democrats are wrestling control away from patients and forcing them onto government-run plans with fewer choices and lower quality. Health opportunity accounts are precisely the kind of creative, free-market solutions that lower prices and improve quality, patient-centered care.  Governor Sanford deserves considerable credit for fighting so hard to give this opportunity for more health care choice to the people of South Carolina,” said Senator DeMint.

“If states are ever going to be able to get a handle on escalating Medicaid costs, Congress needs to offer them more options rather than less options for doing so,” South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford said. “We believe introducing market-based solutions to the Medicaid system will not only result in helping control the growth of the program, but that it will also ultimately result in better patient care. The bottom line is that we don’t believe the answers to the healthcare challenges faced by states rest in Washington DC, and this bill represents a huge step in the wrong direction when it comes to letting states work toward innovative solutions to meet those challenges.”

The Democrat bill to expand socialized medicine:

•       Forbids states from following South Carolina’s lead in utilizing innovative health opportunity accounts

•       Removes 2 million Americans from private health insurance;

•       Makes it easier for illegal immigrants to qualify for SCHIP and Medicaid benefits;

•       Spends over $200 billion in federal and state taxpayer dollars over the next 10 years;

•       Extends benefits to families at 400% of the federal poverty level ($82,600 for a family of four);

•       Allows states to continue using money intended for children to enroll adults (some states currently enroll more adults than children);

•       Increases taxes on cigarettes, a tax that disproportionately falls on Americans at or below the poverty level.

•       Includes earmarks added secretly without debate or a vote that would funnel taxpayer money to a hospital in Tennessee and bolster pensions for labor unions in Michigan. 

“The focus of this debate has shifted from providing low-income children with health care, to moving our country toward a system of European style socialized medicine no matter the cost,” said Senator DeMint.  “Republicans created this program in 1997 to help low-income children, but Democrats are trying to use it to sneak Hillarycare in the back-door. Many would be surprised that today nearly half of all American children have government sponsored health care. This bill could lead more than 70 percent of kids being forced onto government-controlled plans. Americans have already rejected socialized medicine that leads to waiting lines and government appointed doctors. I believe that we can help every American afford health insurance by reforming our tax code to treat all Americans equally and allow every individual and family to choose a portable, affordable private health insurance policy that is right for them.”

###

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) today will vote against the conference report on the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).  The legislation is expected to pass the Senate.  The House of Representatives has already passed SCHIP and President Bush has said he will veto it when it reaches his desk.

“I was very concerned when the SCHIP program was created in 1997 it would eventually be expanded beyond its original purpose,” said Graham.  “From the start, there were worries SCHIP could serve as the first brick in the road to national health care.  Sure enough, a decade later, Congress will expand the program and add dozens of new bricks on the pathway toward government-run, government-controlled national health care.”

Graham noted several problems with the SCHIP legislation including:

·        The expanded SCHIP program moves our nation closer to a single-payer, government-run, government-controlled national health care system.

·        The SCHIP program, created in 1997, was originally designed to provide health insurance to low-income children.  Under the new expansion, the program will now cover adults and families earning as much as $82,600 a year. This year 13 percent of SCHIP funds will go to adults, not low-income children.

·        The program encourages people to move from private health insurance to government-funded health insurance.  According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), 2 million individuals who are currently insured will move from private insurance to government insurance. 

“There are many very serious problems with this legislation,” said Graham.  “This bill doubles the cost of the SCHIP program and is a giant step toward nationalized healthcare.  In addition, no longer are we just covering low-income children, but adults can now join the program.  Finally, we encourage families to drop private insurance and join the government program.  This is a very bad day for our health care system and the American taxpayer.”

####

Boston, MA – Today, Romney for President announced that Ryan Whitaker’s video, “Ready for Action” is the winner of the “Team Mitt: Create Your Own Ad!” contest.  The contest is an unprecedented initiative that empowers supporters to create the campaign’s newest television advertisement by remixing or “mashing up” a large variety of the campaign’s photos, videos and audio clips, as well as their own multimedia content.

Whitaker, a 23 year-old college student from Provo, Utah, will become the first amateur ever to have his work used as an official television advertisement for a presidential campaign.  Created using the online video editing tools of Yahoo! and Jumpcut.com, Whitaker’s ad was the clear favorite in the contest, receiving the most views and the most “love” of all 129 submissions, and receiving 47% of the votes cast among the nine finalists highlighted at MittRomney.com.

Alex Castellanos, Senior Adviser and media strategist to Governor Romney, said, “Ryan’s ad is the first, but it certainly won’t be the last.  This revolutionary use of user-generated content empowers our grassroots supporters and their efforts immeasurably strengthen our campaign.”

The ad will be personally introduced by Governor Romney at the culmination of the final Rally for Romney tomorrow. Rally for Romney is a nationwide grassroots fundraising initiative designed to mobilize and empower volunteers across the country to build support at the grassroots level. This week Rally for Romney call days are taking place in more than 50 cities, in 25 states. The dates and locations of all Rally for Romney events can be found at www.MittRomney.com/Rally

The ad will air once a day for a week in five Iowa and New Hampshire media markets, beginning Wednesday, October 3. Scripts and viewing links are below.

Script For “Ready for Action”:

GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY: “The right course for America in a world where evil still exists is not acquiescence and weakness, it’s assertiveness and strength.

“We believe in a strong military. We believe in a strong economy. We believe in strong families and values.

“There is not one challenge that America faces that we can’t overcome with the innovation and energy and passion, which has always been at the heart of America.

“It is time to cut out the mountains of waste and inefficiency and duplication in the federal government.  I’ve done that in business, I’ve done it in the Olympics, I’ve done it in Massachusetts.  And, frankly, I can’t wait to get my hands on Washington.

“Now is the time, this is the place for us to lead a great coalition of strength.

“For our families, for our future, for America.”

Before broadcast as an official television advertisement, Romney for President will append appropriate disclaimers to comply with federal election law.

To view “Ready for Action”, please click the image or the link below: http://www.mittromney.com/YourAdWinner

Program Airs Statewide on Thursday, Oct. 4 at 7:30 p.m. Columbia, SC…On Thursday, Oct. 4 at 7:30 p.m., ETV’s “The Big Picture” presents “Clyburn of South Carolina,” a documentary spotlighting the career of Majority Whip James E. Clyburn.  Encore presentations air on Saturday, Oct. 6 at 7:30 p.m., and Sunday, Oct. 7 at 1 p.m.

This 30-minute program is a revealing exploration of the life of a college-student-turned-civil rights-activist who would become the nation’s third-most-powerful person in Congress.  From his three bids for state office to his appointment as director of the SC Human Affairs Commission to his impassioned defense of the Lake Marion bridge proposal some have dubbed “The Bridge to Nowhere,” viewers will be treated to a picture of a man whose groundbreaking accomplishments have earned the respect of a nation.

Through it all, however, Clyburn said one of the primary motivations behind his career was changing how blacks are perceived in America: “(I wanted) to prove that black people could run state agencies in South Carolina.  And when I got elected to Congress, I set out to prove that a black person could be an effective congressman and represent the people of South Carolina.   That’s why I conduct myself the way I do, because I want to destroy every single myth that exists about black people.”

Also included in the broadcast is a warm-hearted moment with his wife Emily, who tells the “hamburger story”– a pivotal moment in the beginning of their relationship when she visited the jail and shared a hamburger with a famished Clyburn who had been arrested during an Orangeburg sit-in demonstration.  Viewers will also see how the Congressman combined his two passions–his alma mater and golf–into an annual fundraiser-tournament that provides scholarships to students at South Carolina State University in Orangeburg.

Punctuating the production are interviews with mentors, colleagues and friends including:

q       James B. Edwards, former SC Governor
q       Richard W. Riley, former SC Governor
q       Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior U.S. District Judge
q       Kay Patterson, Senator, D-Richland
q       James L. Felder, former SC House Member
q       Herbert U. Fielding, former SC House Member
q       William “Bill” Clyburn, Representative, D-Aiken
q       Henry E. Brown, Jr., Representative, R-Sixth Congressional District

ETV is South Carolina’s statewide network with 11 television stations, eight radio stations and a closed-circuit educational telecommunications system in more than 2000 schools, colleges, businesses, and government agencies.

###

Boston, MA – Today, Governor Mitt Romney issued the following statement regarding last night’s Democratic presidential debate and the comments by the leading Democratic candidates on our children’s education:

“Last night’s debate was just the latest example of how out of touch the Democratic presidential candidates are with the American people.  Not one candidate was uncomfortable with young children learning about same-sex marriage in the second grade.  This is a subject that should be left to parents, not public school teachers.  We need to strengthen our families by passing a federal marriage amendment and also insisting on marriage before having children.  Change in Washington requires Democrats with the courage to stand-up to their ultra liberal base and do what’s right for our children.”

Background:

At Last Night’s Democratic Presidential Debate, The Candidates Were Asked If They “Would Be Comfortable Having” A Story About Same-Sex Marriage Read To Their Children In Second-Grade.  NECN’S ALLISON KING:  “The issues surrounding gay rights have been hotly debated here in New England. For example, last year some parents of second graders in Lexington, Massachusetts, were outraged to learn their children’s teacher had read a story about same-sex marriage, about a prince who marries another prince.  Same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, but most of you oppose it. Would you be comfortable having this story read to your children as part of their school curriculum?  I’m going to start with Senator Edwards.”  (MSNBC’s Democratic Presidential Debate, Dartmouth, NH, 9/26/07)

• Former Senator John Edwards:  “Yes, Absolutely.”  EDWARDS: “Yes, absolutely.  What I want is I want my children to understand everything about the difficulties that gay and lesbian couples are faced with every day, the discrimination that they’re faced with every single day of their lives. And I suspect my two younger children – Emma Claire, who’s nine, and Jack, who’s seven — will reach the same conclusion that my daughter, Cate, who’s 25, has reached, which is she doesn’t understand why her dad is not in favor of same-sex marriage, and she says her generation will be the generation that brings about the great change in America on that issue.  So I don’t want to make that decision on behalf of my children. I want my children to be able to make that decision on behalf of themselves, and I want them to be exposed to all the information, even in – did you say second grade? Second grade might be a little tough, but even in second grade to be exposed to all –”  KING: “Well, that’s the point is second grade.”  EDWARDS: “- to all of those possibilities because I don’t want to impose my view. Nobody made me God. I don’t get to decide on behalf of my family or my children, as my wife, Elizabeth, who’s spoken her own mind on this issue. I don’t get to impose on them what it is that I believe is right…”  (MSNBC’s Democratic Presidential Debate, Dartmouth, NH, 9/26/07)

• Senator Obama (D-IL):  “I Feel Very Similar To John.”  OBAMA:  “You know, I feel very similar to John: that – you know, the fact is, my 9-year-old and my 6-year-old’s – I think, are already aware that there are same-sex couples. And my wife and I have talked about it.  And one of the things I want to communicate to my children is not to be afraid of people who are different, and because there have been times in our history where I was considered different, or Bill Richardson was considered different.  And one of the things I think the next president has to do is to stop fanning people’s fears….”  (MSNBC’s Democratic Presidential Debate, Dartmouth, NH, 9/26/07)

• Senator Clinton (D-NY):  “I Really Respect What Both John And Barack Said.”  CLINTON:  “Well, I – I really respect what both John and Barack said. I think that we’ve seen differences used for divisive purposes, for political purposes in the last several elections, and I think every one of us on this stage are really personally opposed to that and will do everything we can to prevent it.  With respect to your individual children, that is such a matter of parental discretion. I think that obviously it is better to try to work with your children, to help your children the many differences that are in the world and to really respect other people and the choices that other people make, and that goes far beyond sexual orientation.”  (MSNBC’s Democratic Presidential Debate, Dartmouth, NH, 9/26/07)

ARLINGTON, VA - U.S. Senator John McCain will deliver remarks to the Hudson Institute today, Thursday, September 27^th at 8:30 a.m. EDT in New York City. Below are McCain’s remarks as prepared for delivery:

Thank you for that very generous introduction. It’s an honor to appear at the Hudson Institute. Your work in promoting global security, prosperity, and freedom is well known. Your founder, Herman Kahn, virtually invented the modern field of strategic studies, and today Hudson scholars carry on his tradition of honest, original and far-sighted thinking about America’s situation in the world, and the challenges and opportunities we find as we continue the work of preceding American generations to make this world less threatening to our security and more hospitable to our values.

It has been an interesting two weeks. General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker returned from Iraq and gave Congress and the country an honest assessment of progress in Iraq and the problems we still face and a cogent explanation of how the long overdue change in our tactics and objectives have produced greater success there than we had achieved for the first four years of the war. But in a campaign season that has, regrettably, seen too many occasions when statesmanship has surrendered to pandering, leading Democrats and presidential candidates spurn a clear-eyed assessment of the opportunities and difficulties ahead and a strategic grasp of the consequences of an American defeat for whistling past the grave yard alternatives, which seldom rise above the level of sound bites and that lack, either by design or inexperience, even a crude understanding of the realities of our situation.

Thankfully, efforts in Congress to deny General Petraeus and American forces in Iraq the support necessary to continue their counterinsurgency successes have lost support since the summer. That is, I believe, largely attributable to the fact that it is becoming clearer to Americans, and to members of Congress for whom our situation in Iraq is a substantially greater concern than an election that is more than a year away, that after four years of reinforcing failure in Iraq, we are beginning to get things right there. That is a great credit to General Petraeus, the architect as well as the commander of the counterinsurgency. It is an even greater credit to the men and women he has the honor to command, who have bid good-bye again to their families, while no doubt directing some well-deserved abuse at those of us who have put them in this situation, and then shouldered a rifle and risked everything everything for our sake. On this point I hope we all agree, Republicans and Democrats. It is an honor to live in country so well defended by such brave patriots.

But Democrats who aspire to the office of commander in chief ought to be able to demonstrate that their positions on Iraq and the long war against Islamic extremists are the product of sober reasoning and their promise of more realistic statecraft is based on, well, reality. Instead, they argue we will mysteriously have MORE leverage to induce difficult political reforms in Iraq when we announce we are leaving. They argue the war is lost just as we have finally begun making progress and al Qaeda’s fortunes have taken a decided to turn for the worse in Iraq. They argue nothing has changed in Iraq over the last six months despite the incontrovertible evidence of improvements. They argue we can fight al Qaeda better by ceding the battlefield to them in Iraq.

They refuse to consider the consequences of defeat: an empowered Iran, a victorious al Qaeda, a terrorist safe haven, civil war, genocide, and a wider regional war.

They are circumspect to the point of political cowardice to the far left wing of their party that smears General Petraeus, a man for whom personal honor is no small thing.

They are silent about Syria’s export of suicide bombers, and Iran’s exports of training, weapons and equipment that is being used to kill and maim American soldiers. They offer nothing other than generalities based on a withdrawal that amounts to defeat.

If we choose to lose in Iraq, one of the many dire consequences will be a surge of anther type: a surge of al Qaeda into Afghanistan. The level of violence will increase, casualties will increase, and political progress will slow. How long will it then take before the same advocates of surrender in Iraq, begin demanding an end to our mission in Afghanistan, and a “surge in diplomacy” aimed at a negotiated stalemate with the Taliban?

It is no less true today than it has been in the past: defeatism will not buy peace in our time. It will only make our future less secure and our world less safe.

This week as well, Columbia University hosted Iranian President Ahmadinejad, the Holocaust denier committed to the destruction of Israel, whose regime targets American soldiers with IEDs in Iraq and Afghanistan. But while Columbia welcomed Iran’s leader on campus, one organization remains unwelcome on the Columbia campus: the ROTC. It is unconscionable that Columbia, Harvard and other great American universities remain closed to ROTC, whose graduates represent the bulk of the officers commissioned into our Armed Forces each year. Some academic elites may not like ROTC, and they are free to voice their objections. But they are wrong, and I stand with the many graduates of these institutions who for years have been trying in vain to bring ROTC back to their campuses. I fear for our future when terrorist leaders are welcome at our most prestigious centers of learning, universities conceived to strengthen and nurture the ideals of Western liberal political thought, and young men and women who volunteered to risk their lives to defend those ideals are not.

Prevailing in Iraq and Afghanistan are critical to defeating the threat posed by radical Islamic extremists, but are not the last battle in this global challenge. We are in a long war, a war I am afraid the US government is not adequately prepared to fight. The next president will need tested experience, political courage and strategic clarity to make sound and difficult decisions, even when those decisions are not, as few critical decisions ever are, immediately or decidedly popular. Tough talk or managerial successes in the private sector aren’t adequate assurance that their authors have the experience or qualities necessary for such a singular responsibility. We have to make far-reaching reforms to our government to prepare for the long threat our enemies plan for us, and the cruel and desperate means they will employ to harm us. You don’t just talk about or manage such changes, you lead them.

The nature of the threat confronting America changed radically between the fall of the Berlin Wall and the fall of the Twin Towers, and yet our governmental structures have not kept pace.

No one who has visited our servicemen and women in Iraq or Afghanistan can doubt their skills, their bravery, or their dedication. But it is equally impossible to doubt that, as I have said for years, they are overstretched and under-resourced.

I am glad to see that troop increases are in the pipeline but current plans are not enough. As president, I would bring the army and Marines from the currently planned level of roughly 750,000 to 900,000. This will cost real money, some additional billions annually, but it will not require a draft any more than similar levels did in the 1980s. It is vitally important for the next president to issue a call to service, to summon the young men and women of America to defend their country and its noble ideals. I am confident that this generation will answer the summons just as so many of us did in previous generations.

Along with more personnel, the military will require additional equipment for the expanded force, to modernize for the future, and to make up for losses suffered in the current wars. We can partially offset some of this additional investment by cutting wasteful federal spending, including unnecessary Pentagon programs and an often dysfunctional procurement system. But we can also afford to spend more on our defense. Our defense budget currently consumes less than 4 cents of every dollar that our booming economy generates - far less than we spent during the Cold War.

While we enlarge the armed forces, we must also transform them. To a large extent, our military is still configured to fight enemies that no longer exist. Our stealth bombers, aircraft carriers, and nuclear submarines may make the difference in a future conflict, but they do little to win our current struggles against terrorists from the Horn of Africa to the Hindu Kush.

What we need today are more soldiers and more civilians with the right kind of skills to fight a global counterinsurgency. The bulk of our effort must be directed toward helping friendly governments and their security forces to resist our common foes. Toward that end, I would immediately implement an idea offered by Lieutenant Colonel John Nagl, a veteran of Iraq and one of the army’s brightest strategic thinkers. We should create an Army Advisor Corps with 20,000 soldiers that would work with friendly militaries abroad. I would increase the number of personnel in information operations, Special Forces, civil affairs, military policing, military intelligence, and other disciplines.

We must strive to enhance our understanding of foreign cultures - the human terrain on which we fight. We need to launch a crash program in both civilian and military schools to increase the number of experts in strategic languages such as Arabic and Pashto. We need to require students at our service academies to spend time studying abroad. And we need to enhance the Foreign Area career field within the military while creating a new field in strategic interrogation. In this way we could produce more interrogators who can attain critical knowledge from detainees using advanced psychological techniques and not the kind of repugnant tactics that are rightly prohibited by the Geneva Conventions.

Even as we increase our military capacity, we must also increase our civilian capacity so that an undue burden does not again fall on our soldiers as it has in Afghanistan and Iraq, where the civilian agencies of our government have too often been missing in action. The State Department and other agencies need to enhance their ability to send more experts to rebuild war-torn lands - or, better still, bolster peaceful development to reduce the chances of war breaking out in the first place.

To better coordinate our disparate efforts, I would ask Congress for a civilian follow-on to the 1986 Goldwater-Nichols Act which fostered a culture of joint operations within the separate military services. Today we need similar legislation to ensure that civil servants and soldiers train and work together in peacetime so that they can cooperate effectively in wartime and in postwar reconstruction.

As president, I would revitalize our public diplomacy. In 1998, the Clinton Administration and we in Congress agreed to abolish the United States Information Agency and put its public diplomacy functions inside the State Department. This was a mistake. Dismantling an agency dedicated to promoting America’s message amounted to unilateral disarmament in the struggle of ideas. Communicating our government’s views on day-to-day issues is what the State Department does. But communicating the idea of America, our purpose, our past and our future is a different task. We need to re-create an independent agency with the sole purpose of getting America’s message to the world - a critical element in combating Islamic extremism. The cold war was won not with a tank battle in the Fulda Gap, but by winning the hearts and minds of the people that democracy was better than communism. And so it must be in our struggle with Islami c extremism. We must win this war by convincing the world that freedom is better than rule by terror.

We also need to develop a deployable police presence to, when necessary, help maintain law and order where it is lacking, and to train foreign police forces to counter Islamic extremism and other threats. In the end, dollars, experts, and police must work together to address the interrelated issues of political freedom, good governance, and economic development.

I would also set up a new civil-military agency patterned after the Office of Strategic Services in World War II. A modern-day OSS could draw together unconventional warfare, civil-affairs, paramilitary and psychological-warfare specialists from the military together with covert-action operators from our intelligence agencies and experts in anthropology, advertising, foreign cultures, and numerous other disciplines from inside and outside government. In the spirit of the original OSS, this would be a small, nimble, can-do organization that would fight terrorist subversion across the world and in cyberspace. It could take risks that our bureaucracies today are afraid to take - risks such as infiltrating agents who lack diplomatic cover into terrorist organizations. It could even lead in the front-line efforts to rebuild failed states. A cadre of such undercover operatives would allow us to gain the intelligence on terrorist activities that we don’t get today from our high-tech surveillance systems and from a CIA clandestine service that works almost entirely out of our embassies abroad.

These are not measures that will pay quick dividends. We must understand that we confront a lengthy struggle - a long war - that will not be won quickly or easily. But we will win it.

While our ultimate victory is not in doubt, the length and intensity of this struggle remain to be determined. It’s up to us. We have historically important choices to make, all of us, the American people, their President, and their Members of Congress. We must recognize that our enemies are in this fight to win, and so must we be. We must use our strengths, our resources, our inventiveness and our fortitude - qualities that have distinguished us through history and which have never failed us - to defeat our unpardonable foe. We must act boldly and with confidence that history has not yet assigned us a challenge that we cannot meet successfully. Though we regret the mistakes we have made in this war, they must not cause us self doubt. We must learn from them, as Americans have always learned from our mistakes, and fight smarter and harder. Though we mourn the losses we have already incurred in this war, we must n ot let our grief weary us so that we cannot do the work that is ours to do.

These are the decisions confronting American voters in this election, and they will confront the person you elect President. In November, 2008 the American people will decide with their votes how and where this war will be fought or if it will be fought at all. I have told you how I intend to fight this war. Other candidates will argue for a different course. Democratic candidates for President will argue for the course of cutting our losses and withdrawing from the threat in the vain hope it will not follow us here. I cannot join them in such wishful and very dangerous thinking. Peace at any price is an illusion and its costs are always more tragic than the sacrifices victory requires. I will stand where I stand today and trust you to give me a fair hearing. There is too much at stake in this election for any candidate to do less.

Thank you.

###

HANOVER, NH– On the same day he released a new television ad in New Hampshire, emphasizing that he is the only major candidate committed to withdrawing all American troops from Iraq, Governor Bill Richardson participated in the NBC/DNC Presidential Debate at Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire, moderated by Tim Russert.

WASHINGTON – Congressman Joe Wilson (SC-02) issued the following statement today after the House of Representatives passed H.R. 2693, the “Popcorn Workers Lung Disease Prevention Act.”  The final legislation did not include an amendment offered by Representative Wilson that would have ensured the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) made its final rule regarding diacetyl based on sound science.

“We must do all we can to ensure the safety and well-being of American workers,” said Wilson.  “I am disappointed that the bill passed today by the House of Representatives does a disservice to our workforce and to the regulatory function of OSHA.  We have made a mistake in our rush to regulate, and, fundamentally, that is a flawed approach.”

“I believe my colleagues are sincere in wanting to discover what is harming workers in and around microwave popcorn manufacturing facilities, and I share their concerns for the safety of American workers.  However, insufficient scientific evidence exists to prove a direct link between diacetyl and impaired lung function.  My amendment would have allowed OSHA to provide a rule to protect workers, but they would do so using scientific evidence.

“The Popcorn Workers Lung Disease Prevention Act does not accomplish its intended goal.  It regulates diacetyl and requires a standard to be set based on little or no available science.”

Wilson Amendment to H.R. 2693:

• Would have required that the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) conclude that there is sufficient data to support a recommended exposure limit before OSHA establishes a final rule an exposure limit.
• Would have provided for the same swift action to protect workers by establishing an interim final rule which would provide guidance to manufacturers to take immediate steps to limit exposure through the use of engineering improvements, ventilation, and other strategies to protect workers.

###