The contents of the mailer covered topics that Pryce said she has done something about but here is the truth.
A. Pryce Says She Supports Our Troops (from one of my previous posts)
Wednesday, June 21, 2006:
1. Pryce voted against expanding access to the military's TRICARE health insurance program to all reservist and National Guard members. The proposal would have expanded military health care to provide access to TRICARE to members of the Guard and Reserve and their families for a low fee, which would have helped 2,563 in Ohio. [HR 1815, Roll Call #221, 5/25/05; Leadership Document, “DOD Authorization Previous Question on Rule”; S. 2400, Roll Call Vote #105, 6/2/04]
2. Pryce voted against $30 Million Boost for Veterans Health Care & Benefits. In 2005, Pryce voted against an additional $30 million for veterans' health care. The amendment have would added funding for combat-related trauma care to support wounded troops once they return to their homes, medical and prosthetic research and 100 additional staff to help process claims for compensation and pension benefits. [HR 2528, Roll Call #224, 5/26/05; Leadership Document, “Medical Quality Democratic Amendment Final]
3. Pryce opposed $150 Million Increase for Military Personnel. In 2005, Pryce voted against a proposal to the budget to increase funding for military health care by $100 million and transitional job training for military personnel by $50 million.
[HR 1268, Roll Call #76, 3/16/05; CQ.com vote reports]
4. Pryce voted against Additional Job Assistance to Veterans Returning from Overseas. Pryce opposed efforts to provide extra job training assistance to veterans who are returning from overseas. Four out of 10 members of the Guard and Reserve forces lose income when they leave their civilian jobs for active duty, and many are self-employed or run small businesses. This means they face the daunting task of reestablishing their businesses after their release from active duty. [HR 27, Roll Call #47, 3/2/05; 109th Congressional Record, pg. H915, 3/2/05; 109th Congressional Record, pg. H2074, 4/14/05]
B. Pryce said she voted to support our port security?
Pryce voted against port security that would have made it mandatory to inspect every container coming into this country.
C. Pryce said she is spending taxpayer dollars wisely.
Really? Pryce voted for tax cuts for the wealthy. Her support of tax cuts for large corporations has increased the national debt.
D. Pryce said she is promoting energy independence.
Here are the facts:
According to PoliticalMoneyLine.com:
Over the course of her congressional career, Rep. Deborah Pryce (R-OH) has accepted $157,020 in campaign contributions from “Energy & Natural Resources” PACs....
Votes on Energy & Oil-Related Measures:
- Rep. Pryce voted against a measure that would have provided the U.S. Department of Justice with the authority to prosecute oil companies engaged in gas price gouging and impose fines of up to $100 million on corporations, as well as up to $1 million in fines or 10 years in prison or both for individuals.
- Rep. Pryce voted against an amendment to the 2005 GOP’s oil refinery bill that, among its provisions, would have allowed the president to declare an energy emergency and prohibit gasoline price gouging in times of such emergencies. It would have allowed the Federal Trade Commission to enforce the ban on price gouging and set penalty fines of up to three times the profits gained through price gouging, or up to $3 million.
- Rep. Pryce voted against an amendment to the 2005 GOP’s oil refinery bill that would have provided for stricter penalties dealing with gasoline price gouging, outlaw market manipulation and empower state attorneys' general to enforce the law.
- Rep. Pryce voted for the 2005 GOP’s oil refinery bill that, among its provisions, would require the president to designate federal sites for new oil refineries and allow the federal government (and by extension, taxpayers) to pay new refineries for the costs of significant delays due to lawsuits and government regulations.
- “Opponents said the bill would stifle legitimate lawsuits against refinery projects and in some cases override state or local objections if a refinery were located on federal land. A community or citizens group would have to pay an oil company's legal costs whether they won or lost a lawsuit challenging a refinery under one provision in the bill. Limiting the number of gasoline blends refiners would have to produce to six could hinder the ability of states and cities to meet federal air quality requirements, according to state and county clean air officials, who lobbied against the legislation. Others opposed to the bill were the National League of Cities, nine state attorneys general, and various environmental organizations.”