Printer Friendly
May
Don’t get caught flat-footed in front of the press! Below is a quick rundown of today’s “must reads.” – John T. Doolittle, House Republican Conference Secretary
The Morning Murmur – Wednesday, May 24, 2006
1. U.S. praises Israeli West Bank plan - Associated Press
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, continuing his rounds in Washington with a
speech Wednesday to a joint meeting of Congress, pronounced himself "very,
very pleased" with both the atmosphere and the content of his talks with
U.S. officials.
2. An Amnesty by Any Other Name ... - New York Times Op-ed
In the debate over immigration, "amnesty" has become something of a dirty
word. The situation today bears uncanny similarities to two decades ago, as
Congress debated the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.
3. Iran test-fires long-range missile - Jerusalem Post
Iran conducted a test launch Tuesday night of the Shihab-3 intermediate-range
ballistic missile, which is capable of reaching Israel and US targets in the
region.
4. The Gas-Gouging Myth - Wall Street Journal Op-ed
Yesterday FTC Chairman Deborah Platt Majoras testified to the Senate about
her agency's latest non-findings of price manipulation. Senators on both
sides of the aisle responded to the FTC's lack of price-gouging evidence by
promising . . . anti-gouging legislation. Congress may be one loopy piece of
legislation away from recreating 1970s gas lines.
5. A suburban agenda - Washington Times Op-ed
Congress must solve
problems that people care about most. We need to win the war on terror and
solve our immigration problems. But if we stop there, Congress will fall
short of its potential to improve the lives of the American people.
For previous issues of the Morning Murmur, go to www.GOPsecretary.gov
FULL ARTICLES BELOW:
1. U.S. praises Israeli West Bank
plan - Associated Press
By AMY TEIBEL
In a policy shift, the White House is praising Israel's plan to set its
borders with the Palestinians and is convinced those boundaries could create
side-by-side states if a negotiated solution proves elusive.
Yet the course that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert outlined to President
Bush is detested by the Palestinians and avoids the contentious issues that
have made peace and establishment of a Palestinian state unrealized goals.
Olmert, continuing his rounds in Washington with a speech Wednesday to a
joint meeting of Congress, pronounced himself "very, very pleased" with both
the atmosphere and the content of his talks with U.S. officials.
Likewise, the president said in a news conference after his White House
meeting with Olmert that the Israeli leader had "bold ideas" for unilateral
action should talks founder on the internationally backed "road map" peace
plan.
Before Olmert arrived Sunday, the Bush administration had urged him to
negotiate with the moderate Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, and bypass
the new Hamas leadership. Hamas, branded a terrorist group by the U.S.,
rejects Israel's right to exist and has refused to renounce violence.
A negotiated solution is the preferred route both for Bush and Olmert,
though the president found merit to the prime minister's alternative
approach.
"These ideas could lead to a two-state solution if a pathway to progress on
the road map is not opened in the period ahead," Bush said.
Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, an Abbas ally, welcomed Bush's call for
negotiations. But he rejected the notion of an imposed solution.
"President Bush said the first option is negotiation," Erekat told The
Associated Press. "There is no other option."
Olmert, making his first visit to the U.S. since winning election in March,
said he intended to "exhaust every possibility to promote peace with the
Palestinians according to the road map."
"I extend my hand in peace to Mahmoud Abbas, the elected president of the
Palestinian Authority. I hope he will take the necessary steps which he
committed to in order to move forward," Olmert said.
But, he warned, "We cannot wait indefinitely for the Palestinians to change.
... If we come to the conclusion that no progress is possible, we will be
compelled to try a different route."
In Jerusalem, a senior Cabinet member close to Olmert said if Hamas does not
recognize Israel and renounce violence within six months Israel will move
ahead with plans to unilaterally draw its final borders by 2010.
"If these things don't happen, we won't wait for years, but rather we will
wait until the end of this year," Haim Ramon told Israel Radio. "This will
be a year of diplomacy."
"First negotiations, and after the negotiations, if it doesn't succeed and
it becomes clear that there is no (Palestinian) partner, we will move ahead
with the consolidation plan," Ramon said.
Olmert gave Abbas a tall order, saying after six hours of meetings and
dinner with Bush that Abbas would have to disarm Palestinian militant
groups; the Palestinian government would have to recognize Israel; and
previous agreements would have to be fully put in place.
Fighting has intensifying between Abbas loyalists and Hamas gunmen, and
Hamas has refused to moderate its stance on Israel, raising questions about
the Palestinian president's ability to deliver.
Abbas refused to disarm Palestinian factions even before Hamas swept to
power in January parliamentary elections, fearing that would provoke civil
war. Hamas has rejected international demands that it lay down its guns,
recognize Israel and honor previous peace agreements.
Olmert told reporters he would meet with Abbas, but did not say when.
In his appearance with Bush, Olmert reaffirmed his ideas for Israel's final
borders: The major Jewish settlement blocs on the West Bank where most of
the 250,000 settlers live would become part of Israel, with most other
settlements dismantled.
A senior U.S. official said the administration became more comfortable with
the unilateral alternative because it grew convinced Olmert was serious
about trying to negotiate with Abbas. It also thinks that if efforts to
negotiate fail, then Olmert's ideas could be compatible with the ultimate
goal of a viable Palestinian state, even if the Palestinians had little hand
in creating it, said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity
because he was describing private talks.
The Palestinians are pressing for a full withdrawal from the West Bank and
east Jerusalem.
In addition, Olmert's plan does not begin to tackle the complex issues that
have doomed peace talks before, including the status of Jerusalem. Israel
claims as its capital; the Palestinians mark its eastern sector as the
capital of their future state.
On Capitol Hill, the House voted Tuesday to ban U.S. aid to the Palestinian
Authority and to bar diplomatic contacts with Hamas. The Senate is
considering a less restrictive bill. Bush opposes the legislation on the
ground that it goes too far.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_ISRAEL?SITE=CARIE&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
2. An Amnesty by Any Other Name ... -
New York Times Op-ed
In the debate over immigration, "amnesty" has become something of a dirty
word. Some opponents of the immigration bill being debated in the Senate
assert that it would grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants.
Supporters claim it would do no such thing. Instead, they say, it lays out a
road map by which illegal aliens can earn citizenship.
Perhaps I can shed some light. Two decades ago, while serving as attorney
general under President Ronald Reagan, I was in the thick of things as
Congress debated the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. The
situation today bears uncanny similarities to what we went through then.
In the mid-80's, many members of Congress - pushed by the Democratic
majority in the House and the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee
Policy - advocated amnesty for long-settled illegal immigrants. President
Reagan considered it reasonable to adjust the status of what was then a
relatively small population, and I supported his decision.
In exchange for allowing aliens to stay, he decided, border security and
enforcement of immigration laws would be greatly strengthened - in
particular, through sanctions against employers who hired illegal
immigrants. If jobs were the attraction for illegal immigrants, then cutting
off that option was crucial.
Beyond this, most illegal immigrants who could establish that they had
resided in America continuously for five years would be granted temporary
resident status, which could be upgraded to permanent residency after 18
months and, after another five years, to citizenship.
Note that this path to citizenship was not automatic. Indeed, the
legislation stipulated several conditions: immigrants had to pay application
fees, learn to speak English, understand American civics, pass a medical
exam and register for military selective service. Those with convictions for
a felony or three misdemeanors were ineligible. Sound familiar? These are
pretty much the same provisions included in the new Senate proposal and
cited by its supporters as proof that they have eschewed amnesty in favor of
earned citizenship.
The difference is that President Reagan called this what it was: amnesty.
Indeed, look up the term "amnesty" in Black's Law Dictionary, and you'll
find it says, "the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act provided amnesty
for undocumented aliens already in the country."
Like the amnesty bill of 1986, the current Senate proposal would place those
who have resided illegally in the United States on a path to citizenship,
provided they meet a similar set of conditions and pay a fine and back
taxes. The illegal immigrant does not go to the back of the line but gets
immediate legalized status, while law-abiding applicants wait in their home
countries for years to even get here. And that's the line that counts. In
the end, slight differences in process do not change the overriding fact
that the 1986 law and today's bill are both amnesties.
There is a practical problem as well: the 1986 act did not solve our illegal
immigration problem. From the start, there was widespread document fraud by
applicants. Unsurprisingly, the number of people applying for amnesty far
exceeded projections. And there proved to be a failure of political will in
enforcing new laws against employers.
After a six-month slowdown that followed passage of the legislation, illegal
immigration returned to normal levels and continued unabated. Ultimately,
some 2.7 million people were granted amnesty, and many who were not stayed
anyway, forming the nucleus of today's unauthorized population.
So here we are, 20 years later, having much the same debate and being
offered much the same deal in exchange for promises largely dependent on the
will of future Congresses and presidents.
Will history repeat itself? I hope not. In the post-9/11 world, secure
borders are vital. We have new tools - like biometric technology for
identification, and cameras, sensors and satellites to monitor the border -
that make enforcement and verification less onerous. And we can learn from
the failed policies of the past.
President Bush and Congress would do better to start with securing the
border and strengthening enforcement of existing immigration laws. We might
also try improving on Ronald Reagan's idea of a pilot program for genuinely
temporary workers.
The fair and sound policy is to give those who are here illegally the
opportunity to correct their status by returning to their country of origin
and getting in line with everyone else. This, along with serious enforcement
and control of the illegal inflow at the border - a combination of
incentives and disincentives - will significantly reduce over time our
population of illegal immigrants.
America welcomes more immigrants than any other country. But in keeping open
that door of opportunity, we also must uphold the rule of law and enhance a
fair immigration process, as Ronald Reagan said, to "humanely regain control
of our borders and thereby preserve the value of one of the most sacred
possessions of our people: American citizenship."
Edwin Meese III, a fellow at the Heritage Foundation, was the attorney
general of the United States from 1985 to 1988.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/24/opinion/24meese.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
3. Iran test-fires long-range missile -
Jerusalem Post
Iran conducted a test launch Tuesday night of the Shihab-3
intermediate-range ballistic missile, which is capable of reaching Israel
and US targets in the region, Israel Radio reported. The test came hours
before Prime Minister Ehud Olmert met with US President George W Bush in
Washington to discuss the Iranian threat.
Military officials said it was not clear if this most recent test indicated
an advance in the capabilities of the Shihab 3. They said the test was
likely timed to coincide with the Washington summit and with comments made
by Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah during celebrations in Beirut marking
the 6th anniversary of Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon.
"What deters the enemy from launching an aggression is the resistance's
continuous readiness to respond," Nasrallah told scores of supporters.
"Northern Israel today is within the range of the resistance's rockets. The
ports, bases, factories and everything is within that range."
The Shihab test was only "partly successful," according to news reports. The
nature of the difficulties was not clear. The Iranians have been working to
extend the Shihab 3's current maximum range of 1,300 kilometers. A year ago,
they successfully tested a solid fuel motor for the missile.
In December, Israel's defense against an Iranian ballistic missile strike,
the Arrow 2 missile system, succeeded in intercepting an incoming rocket
simulating an Iranian Shihab 3 at an altitude higher than in the previous 13
exercises.
Maj. Elyakim, commander of the Arrow missile battery at Palmahim, told The
Jerusalem Post last month that the missile crews were always on high alert,
but that they were recently instructed to "raise their level of awareness"
because of developments on the Iranian front.
The Arrow missile, he said, could intercept and destroy any Iranian missile
fired at Israel, including ones carrying non-conventional warheads. Experts
believe that if Iran is attacked by Israel or the US, Teheran would respond
by firing long-range ballistic missiles at Israel.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1148287850178&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
4. The Gas-Gouging Myth - Wall Street
Journal Op-ed
May 24, 2006; Page A14
We're beginning to wonder how many times Congress is going to call for an
investigation into gasoline "price gouging" -- and how many times the
Federal Trade Commission is going to report none exists -- before that
august body begins to grasp the basics of supply and demand.
Yesterday FTC Chairman Deborah Platt Majoras testified to the Senate about
her agency's latest non-findings of price manipulation. The report came in
response to two Congressional requests for investigations, one part of last
summer's energy bill, and another post-Katrina.
Ms. Majoras noted her staff had investigated every possible form of
chicanery -- whether refiners were running their plants below full capacity
to restrict supply, making less gasoline or diverting fuel outside the U.S.
Whether pipeline operators had purposely chose to not expand capacity, if
oil companies had reduced inventory, or if firms used published bulk spot
prices to manipulate the market. The answer was no, no, no, no, no and . . .
no. Most of the gas price hikes before Katrina were the result of the rising
global price of crude oil.
Ms. Majoras did say that in the few months after Katrina several refiners,
wholesalers and retailers had fallen under Congress's hastily manufactured
definition of price-gouging -- which it included in its request for a
Katrina investigation. But she was quick to point out that "local or
regional market trends, however, seemed to explain the price increases in
all but one case." One case? Some conspiracy.
None of this truth-telling was what Congress wanted to hear, eager as it is
to shift its failed energy policies onto the industry in an election year.
Senators on both sides of the aisle responded to the FTC's lack of
price-gouging evidence by promising . . . anti-gouging legislation. This
despite Ms. Majoras's warning that such a law could encourage suppliers to
keep prices artificially low, resulting in shortages. Congress may be one
loopy piece of legislation away from recreating 1970s gas lines.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114843168586561333.html?mod=opinion&ojcontent=otep
5. A suburban agenda - Washington Times
Op-ed
By Mark Kirk
Published May 24, 2006
Congress must solve problems that people care about most. We need to win the
war on terror and solve our immigration problems. But if we stop there,
Congress will fall short of its potential to improve the lives of the
American people.
The customary divisions between Democrats and Republicans often reflect a
divide between urban and rural communities. In the last election,
Republicans commanded rural votes while Democrats dominated the urban vote.
Their votes represented a standard vision of American politics that is
completely out of date. Today, most Americans do not live in urban or rural
communities -- they live in suburban communities.
Suburban families have consistently reported their top congressional
priorities for the last 10 years: education, health care, conservation and
the economy. It is high time Congress advanced a Suburban Agenda to meet
these needs -- setting priorities for legislation shared by many rural and
urban families as well.
Last year, I formed a caucus in Congress to craft a new suburban work plan
for the House. Our mission was to add new legislation for action in Congress
that would directly meet the needs of suburban families from Seattle to
Atlanta. After months of policy development, more than 50 members of
Congress joined to unveil the Suburban Agenda. Congressional leaders and
many Democrats now support this agenda. It represents a commonsense focus on
solving key problems faced by millions of Americans.
In short, the Suburban Agenda reflects a dozen policy initiatives including:
* School Safety Acquiring Faculty Excellence Act (introduced by Rep. Jon
Porter, Nevada Republican), which will allow school boards to screen
criminal records of applicants for coach and teacher positions to make sure
out-of-state pedophiles or felons are not put in charge of classrooms.
* The 401 Kids Family Savings Accounts (introduced by Rep. Clay Shaw,
Florida Republican), which will build on the success of 401(k) plans by
establishing tax-deferred savings for kids from birth to pay for education
or the purchase of a first home.
* The Health Information Technology Promotion Act (introduced by Rep. Nancy
Johnson, Connecticut Republican), which will build on the Veterans
Administration's success by accelerating the deployment of fully electronic
medical records to improve care and reduce errors.
* The Deleting Online Predators Act (introduced by Rep. Michael Fitzpatrick,
Pennsylvania Republican), which will protect children from online predators,
especially the more than 10 million American kids whose data appear on
social networkingsites such as MySpace.com.
* The Open Space and Farmland Preservation Act (introduced by Rep. Jim
Gerlach, Pennsylvania Republican), which will establish grant programs to
protect more suburban green and open space.
* The Gang Elimination Act of 2006 (introduced by Rep. Dave Reichert,
Washington Republican), which will set federal policy to combat drug gangs
now fighting suburban police departments.
These bills represent concrete action to make schools safer, health care
better, habitats more protected and create savings for children to enter our
great middle class. These are not partisan issues. Many Democrats have
already cosponsored these measures. We need such bipartisan leadership to
advance grass-roots, commonsense solutions for key priorities of American
families.
Suburban families want to keep their children safe, with access to a good
doctor, clean environments and savings for a financial future. They rightly
look to their representatives and Congress to focus on similar priorities.
In the coming months, our House Suburban Caucus will introduce new
legislation to extend COBRA insurance rights for life, enact Superfund
program reforms to speed up the clean up of toxic waste sites and implement
measures to help protect teachers and their students from guns or drugs
brought into school.
American families need Congress to work on a strong, thoughtful agenda. The
Suburban Agenda does not come out of "Republican" or "Democratic" thinking.
It is a result of America's 21st-century reality: suburban living.
Rep. Mark Kirk, Illinois Republican, is chairman of the Suburban Caucus.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20060523-105043-3038r.htm
### |
