VoteKansas.org

ABC News today reported that Dennis Hastert is under investigation by the Department of Justice.

However, in a DOJ press release this afternoon DOJ refutes the ABC story. The DOJ statement simply reads:

"Speaker Hastert is not under investigation by the Justice Department."

In turn, Speaker Hastert has demanded a full retraction. From a recent Hastert press release:

Today I helped facilitate a blogger conference call with former Reagan Attorney General Ed Meese. Meese made his feelings about the current Senate bill clear this morning in the pages of the NY Times.

At 10:30 this morning Meese held a call with bloggers to expand on his NY Times Op-Ed. Below are the notes from many of the bloggers on the call.

Captain's Quarters:

The difference between 1986 and now, as Gen. Meese points out, is that we called this amnesty in 1986. Today, people get very unhappy when that label is applied to essentially the same approach. The only difference appears to be the requirement to pay back taxes, hardly a differentiator that would lead reasonable people to conclude that this is not a repeat of Simpson-Mazzoli.

Mary Katharine Ham:

Can we pause for a moment and admire the greatness of that quote from Meese on the '90s before I move on to say that he added that better technology and increased border control forces will help enforce the laws in a way we couldn't post-1986 amnesty.

Michelle Malkin:

Meese and Heritage Foundation's Matthew Spaulding review 1986 amnesty...Meese advocates increased interior enforcemend, strengthened employer sanctions...possible private sector outsourcing for a bona fide temporary worker program after immigration enforcement takes place...more local-state-fed police cooperation...amnesty vs. mass deportation is a false choice...

John Hawkins:

Keep in mind that Ed Meese was around for the Reagan amnesty, so he knows what one looks like and in the teleconference, he essentially said, make no mistake about it, this is an amnesty. He also said that if we pass this bill, we can expect another big group of illegals to be here in 10-15 years.

Meese advocated increased activity against employers who handle illegals and thinks we need much increased enforcement. He also believes that the enforcement should predate any guest worker program (another vote for the House plan).

Kim Priestap:

Former Attorney General Meese is right. The 1986 amnesty law didn't solve the illegal alien problem; it, unfortunately, exacerbated it, and the immigration reform bills that include a path to citizenship will do the same.

Freeman Hunt:

Jon Henke:

I participated in today's blogger conference call with former Attorney General Ed Meese on the subject of immigration reform and his column in today's New York Times. I was interested in his apparent desire to resolve border security and immigration issues first, rather than addressing the "root causes".

Mark Coffey:

Meese was, of course, right in the thick of things when the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act was debated and subsequently passed, so he’s not without expertise in this area. Meese emphasized, both in his op-ed and during the conference call, that the current proposal in the Senate, in common with the approach favored by President Bush, is ‘amnesty’ by any other name, and I don’t disagree. Meese also argues, as Mickey Kaus and others have noted, that this bill doesn’t move current illegal aliens to the back of the citizenship line, as many have claimed. While the immigrant is not granted immediate citizenship, he is granted legal status to remain in this country, provided he pass some rather small hurdles such as a fine and back taxes.

Rich Lowry:

Speaking of 1986 Ed Meese is excellent today on that law in the New York Times...

Arizona Congressman Jeff Flake yesterday declared all out war on earmarks contained in a House Agriculture Appropriations bill. As part of his communications effort he spent time talking with a group of conservative bloggers. Read about that here and here.

Meanwhile, Andy Roth kept tabs of big spenders who opposed Flake's measures and Mary Katharine Ham chronicled the floor debate. 

Former Reagan Attorney General Ed Meese remembers when his boss signed immigration reform legislation in 1986. Because he was there with Reagan, he knows that his boss considered the 1986 bill an amnesty bill. Reagan signed the bill because he thought amnesty for 2.7 million in return for secure borders was worth it -- but history shows the border was not secured.

Now, Meese is speaking out about the bill currently under consideration in the Senate. The Senate bill today looks alot like the 1986 bill. Meese recalls the details of the 1986 legislation in a NY Times Op-Ed today:

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.

Read the rest here.

Yesterday it was reported that the Railroad to Nowhere was stripped out of the emergency war supplemental bill. Now, it appears that the Mississippi duo is not ready to concede defeat.

Congressional Quarterly:

Whether a $700 million earmark to relocate a railroad line in Mississippi will remain in the final emergency supplemental measure for war and hurricane relief was in dispute late Monday.

An aide to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said Monday afternoon that the earmark would not be in the conference report. But a spokeswoman for the author of the provision, Senate Appropriations Chairman Thad Cochran, R-Miss., said it was still on the table.

More:

But Cochran and fellow Mississippi Republican Sen. Trent Lott have defended the relocation as being necessary to prevent future hurricane damage.

A budget aide to Frist had said Monday afternoon that the CSX project was out of the final supplemental spending measure.

But Jenny Manley, Cochran’s spokeswoman, disputed that. “It is certainly subject to negotiations, but right now it is not off the table,” she said. “No one has agreed to cut CSX out of the supp right now.”

Meanwhile, Lott said of the provision’s inclusion,“Until it’s not, it is.”

Well, let's make it not.

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: