VoteKansas.org

Yes, Republicans must be drawing some satisfaction from the shady dealings of Rep. William Jefferson. But the recent FBI raid on the Louisiana Democrat's congressional office was, according to some Republicans, a violation of time honored congressional prerogatives.

The Hill reports:

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) told a wire service yesterday that he was “very concerned” about the constitutionality of the search and had queried the Senate legal counsel to look into it.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) sent an e-mail to Capitol Hill Republicans on Sunday night decrying the FBI’s actions.

“What happened Saturday night ... is the most blatant violation of the Constitutional Separation of Powers in my lifetime,” Gingrich fumed, after having seen news of the search on CNN. “The President should respond accordingly and should discipline (probably fire) whoever exhibited this extraordinary violation. ... As a former Speaker of the House, I am shaken by this abuse of power.”

The comments showed that congressional Republicans were more concerned about possible infringement on the authority of the legislative branch than on fueling the flames now circulating around Jefferson.

Indeed, in 219 years a raid like this has never occurred. The FBI should have at least notified congressional counsel and let them observe the raid. This is a troubling precedent to set. What happens when the FBI starts raiding offices for political reasons under directives from politicians? That may seem far fetched, and it probably is. But the easiest way to ensure things like that don't happen is to nip this in the bud by erring on the side of the constitutionally guaranteed Seperation of Powers.

UPDATE: Glenn Reynolds disagrees:  

...members of Congress who are offended by an unannounced late-night raid on an office might profitably be asked what they think about late-night unannounced raids on private homes, which happen all the time as part of the Congressionally-mandated War on Drugs.

If anything, it ought to work the other way. I think if you searched 435 randomly selected American homes, and 435 Congressional offices, you just might find more evidence of crime in the latter. . . .

USA Today runs a piece about politicians turning increasingly to the blogosphere:

Veteran politicians more familiar with turntables and typewriters are enlisting twentysomething computer whiz kids to help them brave the digital world of blogs, podcasts and the Web as they look to connect directly with voters.

The 2004 presidential campaign ushered in Internet fundraising and the lightning speed effectiveness of Web logs. The next campaign promises a significant increase in Web-based activities; politicians are responding to the reality.

Good news...via Congressional Quarterly:

A $700 million earmark to relocate a railroad line in Mississippi will not be included in the conference report for the emergency supplemental bill providing funds for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and hurricane recovery, a Frist budget aide said Monday.

The relocation would move the CSX railroad line, which was damaged by Hurricane Katrina last August, further inland from the path of hurricanes. The earmark was included in the Senate version of the supplemental (HR 4939) spending bill by Senate Appropriations Chairman Thad Cochran, R-Miss., and has raised the ire of fiscal conservatives, who labeled it the “Railroad to Nowhere.”

This is a good sign, but a friend who is a veteran Capitol Hill analyst correctly reminds me that Senator "Cochran can get that whenever he wants it just by putting funding for it in an approps bill. They'll get it over 10 years instead of one lump sum. $70 million a year would hardly be noticed."

All the more reason to remain vigilant.

Below I noted that on some major Senate votes on the immigration bill over the last week conservatives -- who make up the majority of the majority -- have been continuously rolled by a coalition of GOP moderates and liberal Democrats.

For your information, the compilation of votes are listed below.

An amendment by Senator Jon Kyl to "prohibit H-2C nonimmigrants from adjusting to lawful permanent resident status" was killed despite the support of 32 conservatives.

An amendment by Senator Ken Salazar to dumb down the Inhofe English-language amendment was approved despite the majority of the majority voting against it with 39 votes.

An amendment offered by Senator John Ensign to prohibit illegal aliens from fraudulently obtaining Social Security benefits was defeated narrowly despite the support of 44 Republicans.

An amendment offered by Senator Ted Kennedy to "modify the conditions under which an H-2C nonimmigrants may apply for adjustment of status" triumphed over the objections of 41 Republicans.

An amendment offered by Senator David Vitter to "strike the provisions related to certain undocumented individuals" failed even though 31 Republicans supported it.

Finally, an amendment offered by Senator Johnny Isakson to place border security ahead of "comprehensive" immigration reform failed despite backing from the majority of the majority -- 33 Republicans.

What these numbers point to is an unholy alliance between Senate GOP moderates and liberals -- an alliance which at this time is threatening to ram an amnesty bill through the upper chamber despite protestations from a majority of the majority.

Robert Novak today outlines some of the problems with the "Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act."

-- The bill extends the Davis-Bacon Act's requirement for the payment of "prevailing wage" levels to all temporary guest workers. That puts them ahead of American workers, who have this protection only on federal job sites.

-- Foreign guest farm workers, admitted under the bill, cannot be "terminated from employment by any employer . . . except for just cause." In contrast, American ag workers can be fired for any reason.

More: 

The Senate will likely pass an imigration reform bill this week. As early as tomorrow Senate leaders may hold a vote on the "compromise" measure that has been debated for more than a week.

Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions will raise a budget point of order that lies against the bill based on the fiscal costs associated with amnesty and increased immigration. Nevertheless, Sessions' amendment is unlikely to slow the immigration reform train in the Senate.

It is worth noting that on all the contentious conservative amendments that have been offered to the bill to strengthen it (Isakson's amendment for border security first got 33 GOP votes), a solid majority of the GOP have voted en bloc, leaving Senate Republican sponsors of the bill relying on Democrats to keep it clean of conservative amendments. So it appears that in the end, the bill that finally passes will have done so with the aiding and abetting of the Ted Kennedy's of the Senate, rather than the Sessions, Kyls, Cornyns and Vitters.

If ever the House needed motivation to dig in their heels and prevent an amnesty bill, this should be it.

Writing for the Washington Post this morning Richard Viguerie lays out the conservative case against the Bush Administration and concludes:

And maybe they should. Conservatives are beginning to realize that nothing will change until there's a change in the GOP leadership. If congressional Republicans win this fall, they will see themselves as vindicated, and nothing will get better.

If conservatives accept the idea that we must support Republicans no matter what they do, we give up our bargaining position and any chance at getting things done. We're like a union that agrees never to strike, no matter how badly its members are treated. Sometimes it is better to stand on principle and suffer a temporary defeat. If Ford had won in 1976, it's unlikely Reagan ever would have been president. If the elder Bush had won in 1992, it's unlikely the Republicans would have taken control of Congress in 1994.

True, conservatives should not blindly support Republicans in this next election. A case by case assessment of candidates would be warranted as usual. I think it is important, however, that conservatives not take their anger with Bush out on our Congressional majorities as a whole, i.e. stay home and support no candidate in the fall. Find the candidate that best represents conservatism and support him actively. In other words, don't just sit there and whine - do something.

I am inclined to agree with most of this graph: 

At the very least, conservatives must stop funding the Republican National Committee and other party groups. (Let Big Business take care of that!) Instead, conservatives should dedicate their money and volunteer efforts toward conservative groups and conservative candidates. They should redirect their anger into building a third force -- not a third party, but a movement independent of any party. They should lay the groundwork for a rebirth of the conservative movement and for the 2008 campaign, when, perhaps, a new generation of conservative leaders will step forward.

More thoughts here. 

Senator Elizabeth Dole has penned a letter to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid calling on him to apologize for his Senate floor comments this week in which he called a Jim Inhofe amendment to make english the national language racist.

Read the letter in the extended section.

Good news out of the House today. Via a press release from Congressman Mike Pence:

Specifically, the bill contained $508 million in spending that should not have been designated as emergency funding.

This week incumbent GOP'ers in the PA state house were ousted by a conservative revolt fueled largely by a huge pay raise Republicans voted themselves. What does this mean for Rick Santorum? Politics1 has an intersting observation:

The primary in PA was a mixed bag for Santorum. As Politics1 notes, a good chunk of those voters cast what was perhaps a protest non-vote. That being said, the PA primary was as much about anti-incumbency as it was about the PA pay raise.

The anti-incumbent feeling obviously hurts Santorum. But on the pay raise he has been solidly on record against it from day one. Furthermore, his Democratic opponent Bob Casey signed the pay raise checks as State Treasurer. That may be enough to make this a wash.

Still, if I am Santorum, I am nervous about the volatility of the PA electorate right now.

Michael Barone has a thoughtful post up right now about the state of play on the immigration debate in the Senate. Barone argued in a May 8 column that politicians engaged in this debate were motivated either by conviction or calculation -- and some by a little of both.

Barone thinks the calculation caucus has decided that the price of inaction is too great and that doing SOMETHING -- even if it is not ideal -- is better than doing NOTHING: 

As for the calculation politicians, as they try to assess the political landscape and reconcile the seemingly contradictory findings of various polls, they appear to be coming to the conclusion that inaction–or blocking action now that the issue is so visible–poses a higher political risk than taking action. Voters understandably believe we should have better border security and should do something about the 12 million illegal immigrants in our midst. Neither Congress nor President Bush has acted in five years. Maybe, just maybe, they're on the brink of doing so now.

Barone goes on to quote from this Tony Blankley column in which Blankley argues that conservatives should pay whatever price necessary for a secure border: 

While debating an amendment offered by Senator Jim Inhofe that would declare english the official language and require new citizens to pass a proficiency test, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid speaking against the amendment said, "I don't suggest in any way that Jim Inhofe is a racist."

Uh huh...riiiiight...

Today, Congressman Scott Garrett is offering an amendment in the House of Representatives that would prohibit "funds from being used to send or otherwise pay for the attendance of more than 50 employees from a Federal department or agency at any single conference occurring outside the United States."

The need for this amendment was highlighted in February when Senator Tom Coburn held a hearing examining wasteful spending at the federal agency level. Coburn solicited records from all federal agencies documenting expenses for travel. The results were shocking.

From my Feb 8 column:

In his opening statement, Coburn revealed that since 2000, federal agencies have spent more than $1.4 billion underwriting and sending federal employees to conferences (many of which are located in lavish tropical destinations). Even more shocking, noted Coburn, was that “this increase occurred during a challenging time for our country.” It is also ironic that these costs are increasing at the same time that telecommunication technologies are getting more and more reliable reducing the need for travel.

Michelle Malkin in a February column listed some of the junkets that the taxpayers fund:

-- A Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) trip to the resort town of Los Cabos, Mexico, for a conference on American real estate and urban areas.

-- Another HUD outing to Honolulu

-- for the Sacramento, Calif., Home Ownership Fair. -- A Department of State expedition to Vienna, Austria, to partake in "7 Habits of Highly Effective People" and "Train the Trainer" workshops.

-- A Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) jaunt by 236 employees to an AIDS conference in Barcelona, Spain. Price tag: $3.6 million.

-- A total of 59 HHS conferences around the world with delegations of more than 100 -- including over 1,000 attendees to sunny Orlando, Fla. Employed by HHS? You're going to Disney World!

Ahhh...the life of a federal bureaucrat...Let's hope the House votes to approve Garrett's amendment.

UPDATE: Garrett's amendment passed by voice vote. 

The Senate today defeated an amendment offered by Senator John Ensign that would have prohibited illegal aliens from using fraudulent work history to obtain Social Security benefits. I wrote about Ensign's amendment last week. Here is a refresher:

A compromise immigration bill pending right now in the U.S. Senate (sponsored by Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and Mel Martinez (R-FL)) comes at a time when our nation is facing an enormous crisis on the entitlements front. A recent report moved the year in which Social Security will go broke from 2041 to 2040. Congress cannot afford to keep the promise of Social Security to its own citizens, let alone illegal workers.

To remedy the situation, Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) has offered an amendment to the pending Senate immigration bill that would reverse this law to ensure that law-breakers are not rewarded for their past work at the expense of immigrants who have waited in line and American citizens. Ensign’s amendment may be considered when the Senate takes up the immigration issue yet again -- possibly as soon as next week.

The Senate failed to approve Ensign's amendment by one vote. Here is the voting breakdown.

UPDATE: Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is not happy about the vote. Read his blogged reaction here.

The House last night passed their budget, but not before moderates in the GOP weakened it. In congressional politics on the margins, a party is only as strong as its weakest links.

It long ago had been shorn of Bush initiatives such as curbs on Medicare spending or new incentives for health savings accounts. But conservative GOP House leaders had to make further concessions to mollify party moderates in order to win a 218-210 vote around 1 a.m. EDT.

Moderates won promises for modest increases in spending on education, health and other social programs, though it's not certain voters will see them before the November elections.

Nevertheless, passage of this budget is indeed a good thing. With the budget in effect, House leaders will have procedural tools needed to keep members in line as they continue working on appropriations bills. It is also important to note that GOP leadership did not budge on the overall discretionary spending cap as requested by the President. Granted, they did shift priorities under the cap around to assuage moderates - and that always means more spending and less saving.

But, as Congressional Quarterly notes, moderates in the view of some, gave away half the store by supporting the budget in return for a promise of $3.1 billion in funding for labor, health and education funding. 

Democrats blasted the deal Wednesday as a farce. David R. Obey of Wisconsin, the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations panel, called the moderates “the cowardly lion in ‘The Wizard of Oz.’”

“They are now selling out for a promise,” Obey said. “There’s about as much chance of that happening as the Chicago Cubs winning the pennant this year.”

When uber liberal David Obey is throwing a temper tantrum, something must have gone right.