Printer Friendly
June
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, June 28, 2006
1. Senate warms to 'border first' - Washington Times
Key backers of the Senate immigration bill said yesterday they are willing to
consider a compromise that would delay the guest-worker program and
"amnesty" portions until the borders have been secured.
2. Times Damage Report is Due - New York Post
The head of the Senate Intelligence Committee yesterday asked America's top
spy to assess the damage done to the nation by New York Times leaks of
top-secret intelligence.
3. An Outdated Ban - Washington Post Op-ed
Although balancing energy needs with the environment is always hard, the
prohibition on offshore extraction cannot be justified.
4. Senate Rejects Flag Bill By One Vote - USA Today
The Senate fell one vote short Tuesday of passing a constitutional amendment
that would have allowed Congress to ban desecration of the U.S. flag.
5. When Sexism Claims Are a Real Hoot - RealClear Politics
EEOC excesses provide
examples of a government that keeps growing, and as it grows, it feeds on
our money, erodes our freedom and defies our common sense.
For previous issues of the Morning Murmur, go to www.GOPsecretary.gov
FULL ARTICLES BELOW:
1. Senate warms to 'border first' -
Washington Times
By Amy Fagan
Published June 28, 2006
Key backers of the Senate immigration bill said yesterday they are willing
to consider a compromise that would delay the guest-worker program and
"amnesty" portions until the borders have been secured.
The proposal was floated by Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter in an
interview Monday with editors and reporters at The Washington Times.
"I think it's worth discussing," said Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican.
"Many of us have said we could work on border enforcement and, at the same
time, work on other aspects that would take more time."
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, said a delay will occur
anyway because it will take a few years to set up the guest-worker program
and the structure to process millions of illegal aliens onto a pathway to
citizenship.
"We've always understood that," he said, adding that the final bill must be
"comprehensive" and include all provisions.
"That's the key," he said, after he, Mr. McCain and others hosted a broad
coalition of outside groups demanding a comprehensive bill.
Reaction at the other end of the Capitol was more muted, with at least one
key House leader continuing yesterday to point out flaws in the Senate bill.
The House and Senate approved very different immigration bills, with the
House focusing on building 700 miles of fence on the U.S.-Mexico border,
boosting enforcement and requiring employers to verify that their workers
are here legally. The Senate bill boosts enforcement, too, but also creates
a program for future immigrant workers and a path to citizenship for many
current illegal aliens.
On Monday, Mr. Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who will lead House and
Senate negotiators in the conference committee, told The Times that border
security should be the top priority in the final bill and that he is open to
a compromise that would make the guest-worker program and path to
citizenship for illegal aliens contingent on first ensuring a secure border
and improved interior enforcement.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican and key backer of the Senate
bill, said yesterday he could see that as a possibility.
"I'm open to the idea that you'd have ... border-security benchmarks,
interior-enforcement benchmarks, and once that's fulfilled, you start
assimilating people," he said.
But just a month ago, many of these same senators -- including Mr. Specter,
Mr. Graham and Mr. Kennedy -- voted against a proposal that would have set
out a similar timeline requiring border security and improved enforcement
before the rest of the Senate bill could proceed.
Mr. McCain, who wasn't present for the vote last month, said that approach
was different from Mr. Specter's because it would have required the
government to certify the border is "sealed" before the rest of the Senate
bill could go forward -- a standard that he said could "never" be met.
While Mr. Specter's idea was received in the Senate with cautious optimism,
House Republican leaders remained entrenched in their opposition to the
Senate bill and stuck by their plans to hold hearings next month pointing
out its shortfalls.
The office of House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr.,
Wisconsin Republican -- a staunch critic of the Senate bill -- had no
comment yesterday on Mr. Specter's statements.
Meanwhile, the office of House Majority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio
Republican, pointed out yet another flaw in the Senate bill, saying it would
actually weaken enforcement of immigration law by only permitting local law
enforcement to assist federal agents in enforcing criminal violations of
immigration law, not civil violations.
Many lawmakers say a final bill including any form of "amnesty" would never
pass the House, whether those provisions are delayed or not.
"I don't think the House will go for anything that puts citizenship in the
bill," said Sen. John Ensign, Nevada Republican, who thinks a compromise
bill with a guest-worker program could work, as long as it didn't include
citizenship for the millions of illegals already here, as the Senate bill
would do.
In his comments Monday, Mr. Specter said that the Senate would insist that
the final bill include a guest-worker program and a path to citizenship for
many illegal aliens, but that he is also open to setting goals for border
and interior enforcement ahead of those provisions.
Rep. Mike Pence, Indiana Republican, said it's a "very big deal" that Mr.
Specter is willing to put border security first in the final bill. He also
said he has a bill that may bridge the "amnesty" divide between the two
chambers because he thinks many House Republicans could accept a
guest-worker program that requires illegal aliens to return to their home
country before they can apply for it.
He has a proposal that would set up a privately run system to do this, and
he thinks this "no-amnesty guest-worker" program could work.
"I think the majority of House conservatives would be open to a no-amnesty
guest-worker program," he said.
His bill also would set up a time frame, dedicating two years exclusively to
border security before progressing to the rest of the bill.
Mr. Specter told The Times on Monday that his staff is reviewing Mr. Pence's
proposal.
Mr. Pence said the Senate bill's citizenship approach is a "non-starter" in
the House because it would let illegal aliens remain in the U.S. and
eventually become legal, which most Republicans reject as amnesty.
Mr. McCain, Mr. Kennedy and others insist that it's not amnesty because the
illegal aliens would have to fulfill a long list of demands and pay a fine
before they can get in line for citizenship.
Meanwhile, Sen. Jeff Sessions, Alabama Republican, said that although he is
"encouraged" by Mr. Specter's recent comments, he is concerned that such a
compromise could allow "amnesty" without truly ensuring the borders are
secure and immigration law is being properly enforced.
He said lawmakers shouldn't accept the Senate's contentious proposals "with
nothing more than a promise for enforcement."
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20060628-122247-7109r.htm
2. Times Damage Report is Due - New York
Post
By DEBORAH ORIN
June 28, 2006 -- WASHINGTON - The head of the Senate Intelligence Committee
yesterday asked America's top spy to assess the damage done to the nation by
New York Times leaks of top-secret intelligence.
Sen. Pat Roberts' letter to Director of National Intelligence John
Negroponte came one day after President Bush blasted the "disgraceful" Times
leaks and said they caused "great harm."
"Unauthorized disclosures of classified information continue to threaten our
national security - exposing our sensitive intelligence sources and methods
to our enemies," Roberts wrote.
Roberts (R-Kan.) requested "an assessment of the damage" because "we have
been unable to persuade the media to act responsibly and protect the means
by which we protect this nation."
Roberts said he's "particularly interested in the damage at tributable" to
leaks on a terrorist surveillance program and terrorist finance-tracking
program; both ran in the Times.
Roberts told CNN The Times should replace its motto "All the news that's fit
to print" with "All the classified material that is endangering our country
and making it less safe."
Democrats haven't joined in blasting the Times, but neither have they
defended it. In fact, Times executive editor Bill Keller has confirmed
Democratic Rep. John Murtha (Pa.) was among those pleading with the paper
not to reveal the financial tracking.
http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/times_damage_report_is_due_nationalnews_deborah_orin.htm
3. An Outdated Ban - Washington Post
Op-ed
It's time to allow more offshore drilling.
Wednesday, June 28, 2006; A24
FOR THE PAST quarter of a century, the federal government has banned oil and
gas drilling in most U.S. coastal waters. Efforts to relax the ban have been
repelled on environmental grounds, but it is time to revisit this policy.
Canada and Norway, two countries that care about the environment, have
allowed offshore drilling for years and do not regret it. Offshore oil rigs
in the western Gulf of Mexico, one of the exceptions to the ban imposed by
Congress, endured Hurricane Katrina without spills. The industry's safety
record is impressive, and it's even possible that the drilling ban increases
the danger of oil spills in coastal waters: Less local drilling means more
incoming traffic from oil tankers, which by some reckonings are riskier.
Although balancing energy needs with the environment is always hard, the
prohibition on offshore extraction cannot be justified.
The House of Representatives is about to vote on this question, probably
tomorrow. A bipartisan bill would maintain a ban on drilling within 50 miles
of the shoreline and allow states to extend that to 100 miles. But it would
lift the congressional restriction on drilling beyond that perimeter. This
compromise would give states that are unwilling to countenance the perceived
environmental risks a reasonable measure of control over their coasts. But
it would also open the way to more drilling.
The economic benefit of that drilling would be especially pronounced if it
were aimed at natural gas extraction. Despite all the rhetoric about energy
independence, it doesn't make much difference whether the United States gets
its oil from its own coastal waters or whether it buys it on world markets.
There is one global price for oil; producing more from U.S. waters will
bring down that global price, benefiting all consuming countries rather than
just U.S. consumers. But natural gas is traded globally only in small
quantities, in liquefied form; nearly all of the gas consumed in the United
States is produced domestically or in Canada. So producing more natural gas
in U.S. coastal waters would bring down U.S. natural gas prices rather than
world prices. Because natural gas is much cleaner than its main alternative,
coal, this would have environmental as well as economic benefits.
Unfortunately, the House legislation is flawed. It diverts billions of
dollars' worth of oil and gas royalties from the federal government to the
states, even though the waters from which the resources will come are
federal. The states nearest to the oil rigs may feel they carry most of the
perceived environmental risks, and some sharing of revenue may be justified
to bring them along, but the House bill leans too far in that direction. We
hope the bill passes tomorrow, but we also hope this flaw is fixed before it
becomes law.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/27/AR2006062701646.html
4. Senate Rejects Flag Bill By One Vote -
USA Today
Updated 6/27/2006 11:38 PM ET
By Andrea Stone
WASHINGTON - The Senate fell one vote short Tuesday of passing a
constitutional amendment that would have allowed Congress to ban desecration
of the U.S. flag.
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and other supporters vowed to try again next year,
after a new Congress is elected in November. Since 1990, the measure has
failed five times in the Senate to get the two-thirds vote needed to move to
the states for ratification. The House of Representatives has approved the
amendment seven times, most recently last year.
Hatch says the measure is needed to protect a symbol of freedom and
counteract U.S. Supreme Court decisions in 1989 and 1990 that struck down
state and federal laws. He cites polls showing public support and
non-binding resolutions by 50 state legislatures endorsing the amendment.
"This is a setback, but it's not a final defeat," he said. "For protecting
the Stars and Stripes, I will not give up."
Opponents said the measure would have curtailed First Amendment rights on
speech for the first time since the Bill of Rights was adopted in 1791.
"While I take offense at disrespect to the flag," said Sen. Daniel Inouye,
D-Hawaii, "I nonetheless believe it is my continued duty as a veteran, as an
American citizen and as a United States senator to defend the constitutional
right of protesters to use the flag in non-violent speech."
The amendment reads, "The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical
desecration of the flag of the United States." According to the
pro-amendment Citizens Flag Alliance, there were four cases of flag
desecration in 2006.
The vote came a week before Independence Day and about five months before
the fall elections, prompting both sides to charge the other with playing
election-year politics. It was the second time this month the Senate failed
to pass a constitutional amendment. The other was a ban on gay marriage.
"The Constitution has survived yet another round of election-year
politicking," said Terri Ann Schroeder of the ACLU, which opposed the flag
amendment.
Still, supporters were encouraged. In 2000, the Senate came up four votes
short.
Senators also rejected a statute to ban flag desecration. The narrowly
worded legislation would have made it a crime to desecrate the flag under
certain circumstances, such as when trying to incite violence.
Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., called it a "reasonable alternative that would
protect the flag without infringing on our Bill of Rights." Hatch said the
statute was an attempt by some "to cover their backsides."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-06-27-flag-bill_x.htm
5. When Sexism Claims Are a Real Hoot -
RealClear Politics
By John Stossel
You've probably heard of Hooters -- the restaurant chain known for
attracting male customers by hiring waitresses who are well-endowed and
dressed to show it.
The firm now employs more than 30,000 people. Some would consider this a
success story, but our government didn't. Not because Hooters is using sex
to sell -- but because its waitresses are -- get ready -- women!
"Discrimination!" cried the federal government's Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
The business of Hooters is food, said the government, and "no physical trait
unique to women is required to serve food." EEOC lawyers demanded Hooters
produce all its hiring data, and then grilled Hooters for four years. Mike
McNeil, Hooters' vice president of marketing, told "20/20" the EEOC
bureaucrats demanded to look at reams of paperwork. "Employee manuals,
training manuals, marketing manuals -- virtually everything that's involved
in how we run our business . . . "
The EEOC then issued a set of demands. First, it defined a class of
disappointed males who had not been hired by the company. The EEOC said,
according to McNeil: "We want you to establish a $22-million fund for this
mythical 'class' of dissuaded male applicants. We want you to conduct
sensitivity training studies to teach all of your employees to be more
sensitive to the needs of men."
I suspect Hooters' customers are mostly men who think the firm is quite
sensitive to their needs, thank you -- and that there would indeed be a
class of disappointed males if the government insisted men do the jobs of
Hooters girls.
Typically, companies assaulted by EEOC lawyers just pay up to avoid ruinous
legal fees, but Hooters fought back, cleverly, not just in court, but in the
court of public opinion. Hooters waitresses marched on Washington, chanting,
"Save our jobs." A burly Hooters manager dressed as a Hooters waitress posed
for cameras, beard and all, demonstrating what a "Hooters Guy" might look
like.
That was a hoot, and it may have worked. Lawyers representing male
applicants accepted an out-of-court settlement of $3.75 million, a fraction
of the $22 million that had been demanded. The EEOC dropped its demands for
sensitivity training; Hooters agreed to create more jobs like busboys and
managers, which didn't have to be performed by women.
Sears found itself in the EEOC's cross hairs because more men than women
held jobs selling things like lawn mowers and appliances. The disparate
numbers themselves were proof, said the government, that Sears discriminated
against women.
Sears denied discriminatiing: "We asked women to do those jobs. It's just
that few women want to sell things like lawn mowers."
Is that too politically incorrect a concept for government lawyers to get?
Men and women do have different interests. Go to any Wal-Mart and you'll see
women looking at clothes, men in the hardware department. There are
exceptions, of course, but the sexes do tend to have different interests.
More men selling lawn mowers and more women selling cosmetics does not imply
evil discrimination that requires armies of lawyers from the State. Show me
women who want to sell lawn mowers but are being required to sell cosmetics
instead -- or men who want to sell cosmetics but have to sell lawn mowers --
and we have grounds for discussion. But if the women choose the cosmetics
counter, any discrimination is their own.
The EEOC was unable to produce any women who would complain that they'd been
discriminated against, so Sears finally won the suit. The $20 million the
litigation cost was passed on to us customers.
Have these and other EEOC excesses embarrassed the government into shrinking
the EEOC? Of course not. It now has 2,400 employees, and spent $326.8
million in 2005 -- millions more than the year before. Government keeps
growing, and as it grows, it feeds on our money, erodes our freedom and
defies our common sense.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/06/when_sexism_claims_are_a_real.html
### |