Argus Leader: DM&E critic wants to give to rails
The Argus Leader's Pete Harriman seems to want to pick a fight for Tim Walz in his coverage of the 1st CD's support of the Progress act, which would set up a $350 million grant program for freight rail improvement. We had posted about the PROGRESS Act, which includes many other provisions, yesterday.
However, it doesn't look as if Walz or the Mayo clinic is buying into Harriman's set-up:
Walz spokesman Meredith Salsbery insists Walz's enthusiasm for a railroad grant program is no paradox and does not undercut his position that any DM&E track improvements mitigate Mayo Clinic safety issues. Passage of the Progress Act remains hypothetical, she said, and it is even less likely that if the bill becomes law the DM&E could secure a grant to improve its tracks through Rochester without Mayo leaders approving the project.
"When it comes to Rochester and mitigation, his position has not changed," Salsbery said.
Chris Gade, Mayo spokes-man, said Mayo Clinic officials have not scrutinized the Progress Act. However, "from our perspective, we feel whatever solution is ultimately arrived at, our patients, community and staff need to be protected. Whatever proposals come forward, we remain vigilant to ensure those needs are met."We have never been opposed to railroad expansion. Our concern from the outset is its potential for causing harm to our patients, staff and community and the reluctance of the DM&E to address those concerns."
Besides, there's a big difference between the huge loan for which the DM & E was turned down and the modest grant program that could be tapped by all eligible railroads:
The Progress Act would be much smaller - $350 million in annual grants - than the Rail Rehabilitation and Infrastructure Financing program through which the DM&E has already secured a $233 million loan and through which it sought the additional $2.3 billion. That program has loaning authority of $35 billion.
First District News Digest
The daily papers in the First are reporting on Walz's work in Washington and Thursday's district press call.
The Albert Lea Tribune's Sarah Light reports that Walz says Kosovo isn't a "non-combat" mission. Light's article reviews Walz's leadership on protesting a change in the mission status that would deny 400 Minnesota National Guard members combat pay and benefits.
The Free Press's editorial board agrees with Walz that Kosovo is a combat zone:
This slap in the face comes at a time when the citizen soldiers of the Guard are sacrificing much with numerous deployments to places not only like Kosovo, but also to Iraq and Afghanistan. The U.S. Department of Defense and the Bush administration should not be balancing the budget on the backs of soldiers in the path of danger.
Not now. Not ever.
The New Ulm Journal's editorial page consistently calls for a strong commitment to our country's military hospitals and veterans' system.Today's lead article, Walz: System must be ready for soldiers, vets, spotlights the freshman congressman's own concerns about these institutions. Walz points out the way in which the two are connected when it comes caring for those who serve our country:
Walter Reed Army Medical Center is run by the Department of Defense, while Walz serves on the House Veterans Affairs Committee. The Walter Reed issue is for the Armed Services Committee to deal with, said Walz, “but our fear is that that transition from soldier to veteran, and the burden that the system is going to start to absorb, we need to make sure we’re ready.
“We’re bringing in the directors of these hospitals, we’re bringing in the VA directors, to ask them and to have them provide evidence that they are prepared for the number of soldiers.”
Walz said the American public isn’t going to accept explanations like that given by the Walter Reed commander, Maj. Gen. George W. Weightman, “that he just didn’t know — his house, literally, is right across the street from Building 18. That’s pretty discouraging for veterans, and I think the public is discouraged too.”
Walz said he is willing to take on the oversight responsibilities, to ask questions and see that problems get solved for the soldiers and veterans.
The Journal's editorial board agrees that Kosovo-bound troops deserve combat pay, concluding:
If the DoD believes Kosovo is not a dangerous place, then maybe our troops don’t need to go there. If it is dangerous, the troops should be given the full benefit for going into harm’s way.
The Winona Daily News reports on the Kosovo story as well in Minnesota Guard troops headed to Kosovo amid proposal to cut combat pay for peacekeepers.
It's not online, and readers won't find his stance in yesterday's article in the Star Tribune (a subject of some pearl-clutching for a conservative blogger this morning) but today's Mankato Free Press reports that Walz supports the House Democrats' plan for Iraq. Those who wish to carry on about Walz may actually have to venture out of their comfort zone and follow the local papers. 
Comments