Pages

Thursday, December 9, 2010

MILLER: Obama's immigration two-step

President doesn't mind patchwork enforcement in sanctuary cities


By Rep. Gary G. Miller
-
The Washington Times
6:30 p.m., Wednesday, December 8, 2010




The federal government has failed to stem our nation's illegal-immigration and border-security problems, and as a result, state and local governments have been forced to bear the responsibility and costs associated with this dereliction of duty. Because of that, Arizona earlier this year passed and signed into law the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act to better equip its law enforcement officers to protect citizens and legal immigrants residing in the Grand Canyon State.

Although opponents have spun the intent and effects of the bill, in actuality, the Arizona immigration law mirrors federal law, which already requires aliens to register and carry their documents with them. Arizona's law simply states that violating federal immigration law is a state crime as well. Because illegal immigrants are by definition in violation of federal immigration laws, under the new provisions, they can be arrested by local law enforcement in Arizona.

Despite these facts, the Department of Justice under the Obama administration has sued Arizona. In the lawsuit challenging the Arizona statute, Justice officials argue:
"Although states may exercise their police power in a manner that has an incidental or indirect effect on aliens, a state may not establish its own immigration policy or enforce state laws in a manner that interferes with the federal immigration laws. The Constitution and the federal immigration laws do not permit the development of a patchwork of state and local immigration policies throughout the country."

A patchwork of immigration enforcement? While I would argue the Arizona law does not constitute a patchwork of immigration enforcement, it appears the administration's definition is limited in scope, for if a patchwork were its primary concern, the Obama administration 
would be suing sanctuary cities as well.

Under current law, it is illegal for state and local governments to prevent their police forces from communicating with federal immigration enforcement authorities. Nonetheless, many local governments have adopted "sanctuary city" policies that explicitly prevent their police officers from cooperating with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents.

When local governments refuse to share information with federal immigration authorities, police departments often arrest criminal aliens only to release them without ever checking their immigration status. As a result, instead of being deported, many of those aliens move on to commit additional - and sometimes more serious - criminal offenses.

Although sanctuary cities deliberately disregard our nation's immigration law by refusing to hand over illegal immigrants to federal authorities, they have hypocritically begged to be reimbursed for the cost of jailing illegal immigrants. The Obama administration has not challenged these illegal policies in court, and it has doled out millions of taxpayer dollars to sanctuary cities to compensate for the cost of jailing illegal immigrants. In fact, in 2010, nearly $63 million has been awarded to 27 jurisdictions widely considered to be sanctuary jurisdictions, according to the Center for Immigration Studies. Apparently, if you are a sanctuary city, you can have your cake and eat it, too.

Rather than limited federal dollars being awarded to those jurisdictions that make a mockery of our nation's immigration laws, these funds should be allocated only to those local law enforcement agencies that cooperate with the federal government. To this extent, I have authored legislation that would prohibit sanctuary cities from receiving both Justice and Department of Homeland Security funds, but this is beside the point.

If the administration is serious about making sure we have a uniform immigration policy, it needs to go after sanctuary cities - this would be consistent policy. However, Justice has stated that it will not prosecute sanctuary jurisdictions. Rather, the administration has rewarded sanctuary jurisdictions with federal dollars set aside for the same policies they deliberately ignore.
MugshotA suspected immigration violator is taken out of a holding cell before his immigration status is checked by the Harris County Sheriffs Department and Immigration and Customs Enforcement as part of the booking process. (Eric Kayne/Special to The Washington Times)

As a result of these actions, we can gather that the Obama administration's definition for patchwork of immigration enforcement is limited to those who seek to enforce federal immigration law and does not encompass those who seek to undermine it.
For the sake of consistency and the safety of our communities, it is time to end the double standard.
Rep. Gary G. Miller is a Republican from California.


Hyderali says:
13 hours, 25 minutes ago
It is in the interest of USA not to grant amnesty, which it periodically gives to illegal aliens. If they could cheat to get in then they and their descendents have learnt that cheating pays. Also, many of the new illegal aliens are from Muslim lands, especially Pakistan. These people retain their loyalty to Muslims and willing to plant bombs given a chance. Britain has never granted amnesty to illegal immigrants. But, Britain has very poor border control and let in an estimated 500,000 illegal immigrants from Pakistan alone. This is on top of 1 million legal immigrants from that country. British foreign policies under Labour were dictated by Muslim electorates who overwhelmingly backed Labour. Current Tory PM Cameron has recognised belatedly that this is a security threat. USA should realise it too before it is too late. Otherwise, Dems would be the permanent majority in USA until Islamic party takes over USA with the back of majority Islamic population in the future.
coffic says:
14 hours, 9 minutes ago
I suggest that all states which have within their boundaries any sanctuary cities be denied ANY and ALL federal funds. The feds should take all allocated money and put it toward the federal DEBT, not the deficit. However, before that, we should DEMAND that ICE cooperate fully with states, and take control of any and all illegal immigrants the states find. As that is being done, Homeland Security and the DoD should be building parallel fences, and drones should be looking for 'trespassers', while the border is patrolled by enough people to catch any and all invaders.
The arguments for the poor immigrants are lame, with few exceptions. Those who say that we are a country of immigrants, I would say, WHAT COUNTRY ISN'T INHABITED BY IMMIGRANTS? I would also point out that my ancestors came here legally, were helped in every way by family and community, and, in turn, helped others VOLUNTARILY--not one cent did the government give them--no food, clothing, housing, college education,--nothing. My ancestors came here not for handouts but because they wanted a place to live, work, and worship freely. They worked hard to support their families, and expected NOTHING from the federal government, except that the U.S. government defend the U.S. from invasion.
I can understand the argument for the children of illegals who are here, but, although it is not their fault, they should step up, disapprove of their parents' actions, apologize for the position they have put the U.S. in, and offer to do whatever they can to make the situation right, in order to stay here and work hard toward citizenship. The military or Americorps like agencies would be suitable. At the same time, others should be deported, including the relatives of these kids. It's too bad, but, it is of their own making. Why are we rewarding illegality? I hold the 2 previous administrations as well as Obama for this mess, but, Obama has taken this to a whole new level, and giving citizenship and all its benefits to all those who would come is outrageous and certainly unsustainable.

Ask Issa: The US Inspectors General Question the Top GOP Watchdog Top GOP Watchdog

Issa again he likes to watch himself talk


November 17, 2010


Yesterday, Congressman Issa (R-CA) took questions on his watchdogging plans from your front-line taxpayer watchdogs: the U.S. Inspectors General.

Signs of a Failed Stimulus ???

Stopping waste requires vigilant citizen-watchdogs (like Signs of Failed #Stimulus accountability project MAP




By Congressman Darrell Issa


http://republicans.oversight.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=639&Itemid=7


The link above is to an Interactive Map I see lots of signs in lots of places not sure if the work is being done so i cannot say these are failures 


Signs of President Obama's failed $862 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act – also known as the "stimulus" – are popping up all over the country.  The White House wants Americans to believe that these taxpayer funded billboards are signs of an improving economy created by government spending instead of the cold, hard reality that more than 14.9 million Americans can't find jobs. By focusing on creating jobs through government spending, the Obama Administration has failed to recognize that government doesn't create the jobs that power our economy – private business does.  If stimulus signs posted the truth, they'd say that the White House promised the American people that the stimulus would keep unemployment below 8%: today it stands at 9.6% and runs much higher in some states.  Instead, as many as $192 million stimulus dollars are being spent on these signs that try to sell Americans on the wisdom of a political agenda that has failed to deliver promised job creation.  Signs don't put America back to work, but they are being bought and paid for with your tax dollars in an effort to help President Obama and his pro-stimulus spending allies in Washington keep their jobs.  This is an outrage and we need your help to hold them accountable.





Issa and Your Front-Line Federal Waste-Watchers: The US Inspectors General

As I stated be4  Mr Issa loves to tweet and show off........



Today, Ranking Member Darrell Issa (R-CA) visited with the front-line, in-the-trenches taxpayer watchdogs of the U.S. Inspectors General. The dedicated men and women root out waste, fraud and abuse from within federal agencies and are integral partners in Team Oversight's work to cut spending and shrink the bloated federal bureaucracy.

Debt Buy-Down Act of 2010





thumbnail

The U.S. National Debt:

Congressman Flake Introduces the Debt Buy-Down Act of 2010











     Federal spending is out of control, and Congress is either unable or unwilling to pursue meaningful steps toward reining in the national debt.  Congress may not be ready to tackle the debt, but taxpayers are. In order to let taxpayers directly affect the process, Congressman Flake, along with Senator John McCain, has introduced H.R. 5536, the Debt Buy-Down Act of 2010.
Background
     Taxpayers have watched record levels of deficit spending and the level of the national debt soar to unprecedented levels. With global economic upheaval, concern over federal spending is front and center.
     The 2010 fiscal year deficit is estimated to be a record-breaker, coming in at $1.5 trillion. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that based on the President's budget, deficits will average nearly $1 trillion for a decade. At that rate, the U.S. debt will reach $20 trillion by the end of the decade.  Based on recent history with spending, Members of Congress will be unlikely to do anything to prevent from reaching that $20 trillion mark.
  
     With Congress seemingly unwilling or unable to rein in spending, the time has come to give taxpayers the opportunity to take action and the flexibility to direct their tax dollars to deficit reduction if they choose.

The Bill Language
     The Debt Buy-Down Act would require the IRS to include a check-off on tax forms providing taxpayers the flexibility to voluntarily designate that up to 10% of their tax liability be put toward debt reduction. In order to ensure that reductions in the debt are protected, the bill also requires an equal amount of permanent reductions in federal spending.
     The bill requires spending reductions for the coming year (in order to ensure that gains in debt reductions are protected in the coming year). Congress has an opportunity to pass spending reductions equal to the amount of debt reduction designate by taxpayers. Otherwise, the spending reductions are gained via an across-the-board cut in program spending levels.
     The bill provides several exemptions in the event of an across-the-board cut, including Social Security benefits, benefits for the uniformed services, and payments for net interest.
     While revised and updated slightly, the Debt Buy-Down Act was originally introduced in the House as H.R. 6114 by Rep. Bob Walker (R-PA) and in the Senate as S. 3158 by Sen. Bob Smith (R-NH) in the 102nd Congress. The bill was later introduced in the Senate by Sen. Smith in the 103rd (S. 449), 104th (S. 1108), & 105th (S. 580) Congresses and in the House by Rep. Walker in the 103rd (H.R. 429) and 104th (H.R. 13) and by Rep. Phil English (R-PA) in the 105th (H.R. 1914) and the 106th (H.R. 4626).
Support
     Several organizations in Washington dedicated to reducing America's debt have already expressed their support for the Debt Buy-Down Act. They include the Committee for a Responsible Federal BudgetAmericans for Tax Reform and the Americans for Tax Reform Center for Fiscal AccountabilityNational Taxpayers' UnionCouncil for Citizens Against Government WasteClub for Growth,and Americans for Prosperity. President of Americans For Prosperity, Tim Phillips, said in a letter of support for the Debt Buy-Down Act that "it will be invigorating to see the country’s response to such a small but important change in the IRS form." The National Taxpayers' Union also wrote a letter of support for the Debt Buy-Down Act, as did Citizens Against Government Waste.

     A list of cosponsors of the Debt Buy-Down Act can be found here.

Additional Information

  • More facts about the current U.S. debt and a one-page analysis of the Debt Buy-Down Act can be found here.
  • The press release from Congressman Flake on the Debt Buy-Down Act can be found here.
  • A section-by-section breakdown of the bill's text can be found here.
  • Click here for the full text of the Debt Buy-Down Act.

Congressman Flake: So Just How Broke Are We?



Washington, D.C., Dec 6 - Republican Congressman Jeff Flake, who represents Arizona’s Sixth District, today illustrated the size and scope of the growing national debt.

          The U.S. government has halted production of its new, technologically advanced $100 bills due to an issue with the presses that print U.S. money.

          A Yahoo! Blog post states that the flawed bills cost approximately $120 million to print and add up to $10 billion – more than 10-percent of our total money supply. And because the flaw cannot be repaired, the bills will now have to be burned. If we saved the quarantined bills from fiery doom and instead put them to use in paying off our massive $13 trillion debt, the government would have to goof up approximately 1,300 more times before our debt would be paid off.

          “We’ve been figuratively burning money for years, but now we’re literally burning money?” said Flake.

          Along with Senator McCain, Congressman Flake introduced the Debt Buy-Down Act, which allows taxpayers to designate up to 10 percent of their federal income tax liability to reduce the national debt. The bill then requires Congress to reduce federal spending by that amount.

Issa Addresses ‘Focus on Recovery’ Conference

Issa loves to Tweet and this is one topic he tweets alot about.........

I've Tweeted a lot with you on my work to strengthen your front-line taxpayer watchdogs, the US Inspectors General (#IG)




Thursday, 18 November 2010 12:36
Calls for Oversight Agenda Committed to Rooting Out Waste, Fraud and Abuse

WASHINGTON D.C. – Speaking in Philadelphia at the “Focus on Recovery” 2010 Biennial National Procurement and Grant Fraud Conference, Rep. Darrell Issa, the Ranking Member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, highlighted the importance of working with the Inspector General (IG) community to root out waste, fraud and abuse.

“We are as close to a team as we’ve ever been starting in January…we have to be teaming to do the same thing and that’s going to be a challenge…to find ways to make it possible for literally thousands of people whose job it is to root out waste, fraud and abuse in government, to do their job and do it without fear of interference either from Congress or unreasonably the Executive Branch you report to,” Issa said. “There are opportunities for income without tax increases, there are opportunities to make people pay their fair share and there are certainly opportunities to ensure that only those entitled to payments get them.”

Issa stressed the need to work with the IG community to root out waste and duplicity within the federal bureaucracy. “But if we’re going to have my Committee, which includes the term ‘reform’ in it, be able to do its job, we’re going to need sources of waste that go beyond corruption,” said Issa. “Sources of waste that go into the question of why do we have, even within one cabinet position, 7 or 8 different groups doing the same thing…to find opportunities where between the cracks, between different agencies, the same money is being spent when it only needs to be spent once.”

Issa, who has called for new reforms such as granting all Inspectors General with subpoena authority (currently only one of the 74 IG’s have it) said, “I’ve got to ensure that if you do your job, you will never be punished for it…if you push the limit of what you think you can investigate, you will be cooperated with, you will get the information you want and if you release it in the appropriate way, you will keep your job.”

The conference was co-sponsored by the Recovery Board, the Office of Inspector General, U.S. Postal Service, and the National Procurement Fraud Task Force, which was recently rolled into the President’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force. More than 500 investigators, auditors, analysts and prosecutors attended the conference.

image001
 

The jobs O hates

New regs = more pink slips

Last Updated: 5:00 AM, December 6, 2010
Posted: 10:44 PM, December 5, 2010


For all his talk of job creation, Presi dent Obama has targeted many occu pations for extinction. Using un elected bureaucrats to implement a host of job-killing measures, his administration is generating piles of pink slips:
Oil: Even before the BP spill, Obama's Interior Department had cracked down on domestic drilling. In 2009, regulators allowed less than $1 billion in new oil and natural gas leases on federally controlled areas -- both onshore and offshore -- compared to $10 billion under President George W. Bush the year before.
Then, in response to the Gulf spill in April, Obama slowed down things even further, with a moratorium on deep-water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. That proved so unpopular that the administration officially ended it -- but it remains in force unofficially, as regulators bottle up drilling permits with red tape and delays, keeping workers idle. Most recently, Obama regulators placed the entire Atlantic and Pacific coasts off limits to drilling.
Furious flotilla: Fisherman lined up their boats off Martha's Vineyard last summer to protest job-killing regulations.
AP
Furious flotilla: Fisherman lined up their boats off Martha's Vineyard last summer to protest job-killing regulations.



Factories: Rising regulatory burdens, energy prices and health-care costs -- Obama has left no stone unturned in making American manufacturing globally less competitive and in forcing jobs overseas.
For example, several new Environmental Protection Agency permit requirements have shut down the construction of coal-fired power plants needed to provide manufacturers with affordable electricity. Jeffrey Holmstead, a former top air-quality EPA official, noted that in 2009 the incoming Obama bureaucrats "withdrew permits that had already been issued," and that "dozens are being held up today because they have no way to meet a new standard that EPA has put out."
It will soon get worse. A barrage of new regulations, including measures intended to address global warming, will hit in January 2011 -- directly targeted manufacturers, and far more costly and complex than anything imposed by America's global competitors, like China, on their own industries.
Mines: The decades-long regulatory squeeze on minerals mining continues unabated, and the Obama administration has now added coal mining to the hit list. The attack includes global-warming regulations that seek to restrict demand for coal and also direct attempts to stop new coal mines from opening.
States that rely on coal-mining jobs are feeling the pinch. Joe Manchin, formerly West Virginia's governor and now its newest US senator, boasts that, "over the past year and a half, we have been fighting Obama administration attempts to destroy the coal mining industry." As governor, Manchin sued the EPA in an attempt to prevent the agency from blocking coal mines in his state. But Obama shows no sign of budging -- even though Manchin is a fellow Democrat.
Fishing: Obama's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is imposing strict fishing limits, even where there is little or no evidence of an overfishing problem. Its controversial catch-shares program is destroying jobs in such fishing communities as Gloucester and New Bedford in Massachusetts, both of which are challenging the program's legality in federal court.
And the White House's new Ocean Policy Initiative would place more burdens on a US fishing industry that is already heavily regulated. Bonner Cohen, senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research, fears that this scheme "circumvents existing state and local decision-making bodies and replaces them with made-in-Washington zoning with the power to declare areas off limits to fishing."
There's a common thread among these and other beleaguered occupations: Environmentalists hate them. Green absolutists would be happy to see no oil or coal taken out of the ground or fish out of the sea and as many factories dismantled as possible, without any regard for the impact on jobs. Instead, they hype "green jobs" doing things like building wind turbines and solar panels, but these jobs are proving to be a mere trickle compared to those being lost.
Radical environmentalists have all but declared war on high-wage blue-collar jobs in this country, and the Obama administration has sided with them. The nation's stubbornly high unemployment rate is evidence they're winning.
Ben Lieberman is a senior fellow in envi ronmental policy with the Competitive En terprise Institute in Washington, DC.


9/11 Responders

Today, the 69th anniv of Pearl Harbor, I'll stand w/colleagues & 9/11 heroes to remind Congress that we took care of victims of that attack.

We now have an undeniable moral obligation to take care of the innocent victims & heroes of 9/11 and provide them w/the care they need.

We must pass the 9/11 first responder health bill. These heroes deserve to have their health protected 

This is morally repugnant RT @nytimes: Senate GOP Block US Health Aid for 9/11 Workers 

The idea that tax cuts for millionaires would derail the 9/11 health bill is outrageous & offensive.

Our brave 1st responders did not delay on 9/11 & the Senate should not have delayed today, certainly not to give tax breaks to millionaires


Attack on pearl harbor

Today is Dec 7, 2010,  69 years ago the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor in a sneak attack
We salute those Americans who gave their life on that day for their Country......



an old video on the surprise attack on pearl harbor by the japanese during world war two, 7th December 1941

Sec. Gates: Russia not a threat to US.... So why is START treaty so urgent it must be done in lame duck


Seal of the Department of DefenseU.S. Department of Defense
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs)
News Transcript
On the Web: 
http://www.defense.gov/Transcripts/Transcript.aspx?TranscriptID=4687
Media contact: +1 (703) 697-5131/697-5132
Public contact:
http://www.defense.gov/landing/comment.aspx
or +1 (703) 428-0711 +1

Presenter: Secretary of Defense Robert M. GatesSeptember 13, 2010

Interfax News Agency Interview with Secretary Gates

                MR. PETER CHEREMUSHKIN (Interfax News Agency):  Thank you for the opportunity to talk to you.  I've been waiting for a long time, and I know there is a big competition among Russian journalists to interview you.  So it's a rare opportunity and thank you very much for that. 
                My first question would be, how do you -- why do you see this visit of Minister Serdyukov as important?  And what documents do you plan to sign with him at the visit?
                SEC. GATES:  As I have watched the minister undertake his reform efforts in Russia, I've been impressed by their breadth and the degree to which some of the efforts he's undertaking parallel those that I'm trying to undertake here in the United States in terms of dealing with more stringent economic circumstances and the likelihood of at least no significant increases in money in the years -- in the years ahead.  And so, how to make better use of the resources that we've been given.  And I think that there's a robust agenda that we can talk about in terms of they're relevant to both of our efforts.  I know that he has an interest in professional military education, in figuring out how to recruit and keep high quality soldiers and how to administer these programs in ways that advance our respective national security, but at the same time take into account the economic challenges that both of our countries face.
                We will -- we will sign two documents.  One will be a memorandum of understanding that updates an earlier agreement signed in 1993 that basically is an umbrella in terms of ways in which we can cooperate, interact with one another.  The other is a defense relations working group that is actually a -- called for under the bilateral presidential commission that Presidents Obama and Medvedev signed.  And that really is more concrete in terms of specific areas where we can see if we can increase our cooperation, but also exchanges of information dealing with global and regional threats and future cooperation. 
                MR. CHEREMUSHKIN:  For a long time, U.S. and Russia were rivals.  Does United States view Russia as a continuing threat to its national security?  And are you concerned about Russian new build up of more powerful ICBMs?
                SEC. GATES:  No.  I think that we are -- we have -- I don't see Russia as a threat.  I see Russia -- Russian-U.S. relations being those of normal states now.  We're partners in some areas and competitors in others.  But on important things, we are cooperating.  The effort to deal with terrorists, we are cooperating, the effort to deal with the Iranian nuclear program.  We're cooperating as evident in the U.N. Security Council resolution.  We're working together on issues such as counter-piracy. 
                So there are a number of areas where we are cooperating.  And as far as modernization programs, this is one of the great benefits, it seems to me, of the new START agreement, as with the agreements that have preceded it.  And that is that they establish ground rules for both sides that provide both transparency and predictability.  And so modernization programs that take place within the framework of new START are completely legitimate.  We will have our own modernization programs.
                MR. CHEREMUSHKIN:  What areas of military cooperating -- can you be more specific about the areas of cooperation with Russia that you view as potentially successful or successful?  What chances do you see for the future of joint military exercises between U.S. and Russia?
                SEC. GATES:  Well, we've done some of those.  We've just completed a very important joint exercise in which the problem for the exercise was a hijacked airliner by terrorists, and our air forces cooperated in that realm.  I think that there are -- we're already getting good cooperation out of Russia in terms of supporting our effort in Afghanistan by allowing equipment to transit Russia. 
                I know that the narcotics coming out of Afghanistan are of very real concern for Russia.  And so clearly in the counternarcotics arena there can be greater cooperation.  But I think there's -- I think there's a much greater opportunity for military exercises, for greater interaction with one another.  I think there are a number of areas that are -- opportunity.
                MR. CHEREMUSHKIN:  Can you be more specific about what extent Russia helped to work on Northern Distribution Network in Afghanistan?
                SEC. GATES:  Well, we have negotiated contracts, and at this point, I think, we have -- we have sent something like 20,000 containers across the Northern Distribution Network, and a very high percentage of those have come across Russia.  It's enormously helpful to us.  It's financially beneficial to Russia because these are commercial contracts.  But there's no question that this network has become important for us.  About 50 percent of the sustainment supplies for us in Afghanistan now go across the Northern Distribution Network, and I think it's an example of cooperation.  We're obviously interested in buying MI-17 helicopters.  They're well-suited for Afghanistan.  Afghans are familiar with them, know how to fly them, comfortable with them, and we'd like to pursue that.  We're getting, frankly, some pushback here in the United States by American helicopter manufacturers wondering why we're interested in buying Russian ones.  The buy that we have in mind is pretty limited, but we'll have to work our way through the politics of that.
                MR. CHEREMUSHKIN:  When do you think the decision about that could be taken?
                SEC. GATES:  I honestly don't know.  It really depends on being able to get the money from the Congress.
                MR. CHEREMUSHKIN:  I see.  You mentioned START -- new START treaty.  How do you view the perspectives of the ratification of new START treaty?  And do you think U.S. and Russia can agree to make next steps for further reductions of nuclear arsenals?
                SEC. GATES:  Well, I think that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will vote this week on the treaty.  I'm pretty confident that the treaty will get out of committee, if you will.  The prospects in terms of the full Senate, I think, there is still a lot of dialogue going on between the administration and members of the Senate, particularly Republican members of the Senate. 
                I would just say that I first started in the strategic arms negotiations business with Russia, with the Soviet Union almost 40 years ago, 1971, and every single strategic arms agreement that we have signed with Russia, the Soviet Union, was passed by large bipartisan majorities.  So I'm hopeful.
                MR. CHEREMUSHKIN:  So you don't expect it could be a victim of political dis-balance in the Senate?
                SEC. GATES:  Well, I mean, it would be a sad thing if that were -- if that were to be the case because I don't think it would be on the merits of the treaty.  I think that we all believe this treaty is in both countries' interests and certainly should be approved. 
                MR. CHEREMUSHKIN:  There was a letter leaked to the media from you to John Kerry on July 30th, that you expressed the assumption that if Russia violates START III, the United States will alert its submarines and bombers with nuclear warheads and deploy additional warheads.  Does it mean that U.S. will take the same measures if Russia pulls out of the new START? 
                And Russian leaders claim that the development of U.S. ABM systems is a threat to the Russian strategic nuclear forces and may damage all the achievements of the new START.
                What would be your response to that? 
                SEC. GATES:  Well, first of all, the -- I think our reaction to -- I think what Senator Kerry was asking what would be our response if we caught Russia cheating on the treaty, and that obviously would have large political implications and we would have to determine the motives for the cheating and what the strategic consequences were before deciding what to do.  If Russia withdrew from the treaty, again, it would depend on the motives and what actions Russia was taking, but I would not say that if Russia withdrew from the treaty, we automatically would raise our alert levels. 
                I've been in conversations with Russia's leaders now for almost four years on missile defense, on several occasions with now-Prime Minister Putin, then-President Putin and subsequently with President Medvedev.  And I think one of the things that is absolutely clear about the new approach this administration has taken with the phased, adaptive approach in Europe is that neither in terms of physics nor geography can the missiles that we are putting in as part of the phased adaptive approach be considered a threat to Russia's missiles.  They don't have the speed.  They don't have the orientation, the radar's orientation.
                MR. CHEREMUSHKIN:  You mean U.S. missiles?
                SEC. GATES:  U.S. defensive missiles, anti-missiles.  And these -- as we've pointed out all along, this is all intended as a defense against Iran.  And we would be, as I have said from the very beginning, we would like to have Russia as partners in this, and not just in terms of enhancing our capabilities but enhancing Russia's defenses as well.  And, you know, one of your senior leaders several years ago told me, you know, the Iranians don't need a missile to get a nuclear weapon into Russia.  But the reality is Iranian missiles with nuclear warheads are as big a danger, are actually a bigger danger to Russia than they are to the United States because they don't have intercontinental ballistic missiles yet.  And we are prepared to work with Russia.  We think that there are opportunities, not only to partner, but where the Russians could make a contribution to their own security, as well as being a partner with us.
                MR. CHEREMUSHKIN:  Is there a chance for -- to create mutual ABM with Russia?  And are there any technical abilities of Russia that are of interest to the United States, for interest, Qabala station?  Can it be used?
                SEC. GATES:  We have been very interested in the Qabala radar.  We've had conversations about it.  I think we've sent technical experts there to examine the radar.  We've talked about a data center, a data exchange center in Moscow where all of this information on missile launches could be shared.
                So I think that there are a number of areas where we could work together.
                MR. CHEREMUSHKIN:  At this time, what is your assessment of Iran nuclear capabilities?  And how far Iran has gone in to build up nuclear weapons, do you think?
                SEC. GATES:  Well, they have -- they have -- they seem to be implacably determined to develop nuclear weapons.  I mean, here we have multiple U.N. Security Council resolutions condemning their efforts, imposing sanctions on them.  They are isolated in the international community and still they move ahead.
                We have always said, even under the Bush administration, that a -- that we were prepared to agree to a peaceful nuclear program for Iran and we are prepared -- we supported with the proposal on the Tehran research reactor, we supported the idea of them providing -- giving the enriched uranium they've already created to Russia to hold and for Russia to have kind of a bank, if you will.
                MR. CHEREMUSHKIN:  Yes.
                SEC. GATES:  And we're very supportive of that.  If the -- if it can be arranged in verifiable ways that we all can know that they've stopped their nuclear program, their nuclear weapons program -- but nothing has deterred them to this point.  We will keep all of our options open as any country must, but we continue to believe that the pressure track, both diplomatic and economic sanctions, still have the potential to persuade the Iranians to come to terms and end their efforts to get nuclear weapons.
                MR. CHEREMUSHKIN:  Is there a possibility for military strike over Iran if Tehran won't stop its nuclear program?
                SEC. GATES:  Well, as I say, every country will keep its options open, and clearly, the military option is one of them.  By the same token, war brings with it enormous unpredictability and uncertainty.  And I think it would have to be -- a military option would have to be considered a last resort.
              
                MR. CHEREMUSHKIN:  May I ask about Georgia? The United States is supplying Georgia with weapons and it's a matter of big concern for Russian Federation.  What do you think about the future of weapons supplies to Georgia?  Will the United States continue to provide weapons, or how do you -- what's your expectation?

                SEC. GATES:  Well, what I would say is, first of all, every sovereign country has the -- has the right to provide for its own defense.  We have been, I think, careful in what we have provided to Georgia.  We also are interested in providing Georgia with the means by which they can help us in Afghanistan, and so a good part of the training and other things that we're doing with the Georgians are because they have been so willing to make a contribution of considerable importance to our efforts in Afghanistan.
                MR. GEOFF MORRELL (Pentagon Press Secretary):  Great.
                MR. CHEREMUSHKIN:  Thank you very much. 

Prosecutors General



Darrell Issa does a bad Henry Waxman imitation.



Here's a recipe for political mischief: Hire a lawyer in the executive branch with an objective directly at odds with his agency, make him accountable to no one and have him report to Congress. Now give him subpoena power.
That's what would happen if California Republican Darrell Issa, the next House Oversight and Reform Chairman, gets his wish to increase the power of inspectors general within the executive branch. This is a terrible idea and one more way for Congress to set up a fifth column to cripple the Presidency.
Since Republicans won the House in November, Mr. Issa has been trumpeting his intention to beef up the Oversight Committee's investigative work. His latest brainstorm is to give the more than 70 Inspectors General more clout to ride herd over the growth and encroachment of the federal bureaucracy. We're all for aggressive oversight, but Mr. Issa's plan violates the Constitution's separation of powers.

Housed in the various executive agencies but really creatures of Congress, IGs have always been an odd constitutional hybrid. Like independent counsels, their role as licensed investigators predisposes them to err on the side of finding fault. They get no headlines for saying no one did anything wrong. And because they are funded by Congress and answer primarily to Congress, most of them do Congress's bidding. The alternative is being hauled to Capitol Hill for rough treatment at public hearings. If IGs are now going to be armed with the power to subpoena witness testimony, they'd create mayhem in the executive branch and become engines of Congress's political agenda.
There is no area of government in which executive authority is clearer than in law enforcement—where the power to investigate and prosecute is the power to destroy. Under current law, inspectors general have the power to subpoena documents and records but not witness testimony. If they identify a potential problem, they refer it to law enforcement authorities, and the Department of Justice is then responsible for making the decision on how to proceed.
By vesting an inspector general with the powers of a prosecutor, Mr. Issa would upset the balance of power that the Justice Department's involvement contributes. Aggrandizing their roles within their respective agencies also tips the scales internally, strengthening the wherewithal of the IG while weakening the Secretary appointed by the President to run the department. Political appointees are already weak enough given civil service laws that entrench the bureaucracy.
That may be exactly what Mr. Issa intends, but for a Republican to endorse this shows he's learned the wrong lesson from watching Democrats like fellow Californian Henry Waxman abuse their power by harassing GOP Presidents. Mr. Issa recently put the Oversight Committee on notice that he wants "seven hearings a week, times 40 weeks." That would well outstrip Mr. Waxman's breakneck pace of 203 hearings in two years.
For conservative appeal, Mr. Issa has suggested the IGs could add value by identifying wasteful spending in their departments, with an initial goal to cut $40 billion. But that is Congress's job. Mr. Issa also says that IGs need subpoena power so that they don't have to use it, presumably because the threat itself would encourage cooperation. "We need the IGs to get answers," he told CNN. "You bring it back to Congress and we fix it." Sure, IGs will show a restraint that no one else in the bureaucracy does.
Mr. Issa and Congress already have the legal authority and subpoena power to conduct oversight without trampling the separation of powers. Effective Congressional oversight requires hard work and political care, and Mr. Issa's unconstitutional lunge to expand his writ makes us wonder if he has the judgment for the job.
House Republicans have been trumpeting their fealty to the Constitution's limits on government, and voters can be forgiven for thinking that included limits on Congress. Mr. Issa might want to invite some Federalist Society lawyers to give him a Constitutional refresher course, and GOP leaders ought to cashier his destructive idea.