VoteKansas.org

So the House of Representatives is in lockdown mode after reports of gunshots being heard surfaced this morning. Staffers and all in the building have been ordered to stay put. A short time ago, Capitol Hill police sent out an email to all House staffers with the words "Update - Important Instructions for the Rayburn HOB" in the subject line.

The email reads (I have X'ed out sensitive information):

The Capitol Police continue to investigate the report of gunfire in the
Rayburn HOB.

1. If you have not done so, lock your office doors.

2. The Capitol Police will soon commence a search of the Rayburn HOB floor by floor.

3. During the search, the police officers will knock XX times on each office door, announce "United States Capitol Police", knock XX additional times, and then voice the code word "XXXXX".

4. Open your office doors for the police and cooperate with all police
instructions.

5. All occupants should remain in their offices until the Capitol Police
announce that it is safe to exit.

6. If there are special concerns about the identity of the person knocking on your door and you need to verify their identity, call (202) 224-xxxx.

Let's hope the would-be gunman doesn't have internet access.

Oooooops!!

UPDATE: Boddington at Red State got the same email.

Last night the Senate finished debating the immigration reform bill. The legislation that contained amnesty for millions passed despite the better judgement of a majority of the Republican Party.

Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions was a hero during debate on this bill. Now that debate is done, it is interesting to note how often the Jeff Sessions position -- the conservative position -- garnered a majority of Republican votes but lost the overall vote. This further illustrates that this is a bill made of by and for the moderate/liberal caucus in the Senate.

On Senate vote 121 to secure the borders 64.7 percent of the R's voted with Sessions, but the moderate/liberal caucus prevailed.

On Senate vote 127 regarding earned citizenship the Sessions position garnered 56.4 percent of the Republican vote but the moderate/liberal caucus prevailed.

On Senate vote 128 on guest worker status the Sessions position received 85.5 percent Republican support -- this was enough to just barely prevail (by 2 votes) over the moderate/liberal caucus.

On Senate vote 129 on guest worker status Sessions' position received 74.5 percent of Republicans' support but failed to prevail of the moderate/liberal caucus.

On Senate vote 130 on Social Security 80 percent support for the Sessions' position was not enough to overcome the moderate/liberal caucus.

On Senate vote 132 gutting the Inhofe English language amendment Sessions' position received 73.6 percent of R support but still got rolled by the moderate/liberal caucus.

On Senate vote 135 regarding the temporary worker program 64 percent of R's voted with Sessions. The Sessions position was again rolled by the moderate/liberal caucus.

On Senate vote 136 regarding agriculture workers' wages 80.8 percent of Republicans voted with Sessions. The Sessions position loses again.

On Senate vote 140 regarding an employer verification program Sessions' position drew support from 68.5 percent of his fellow Republicans while again losing the overall vote.

On Senate vote 149 regarding "blue card" modification, Sessions' position was rolled by the moderate/liberal coalition despite receiving 60.4 percent of the votes from Republicans.

And of course we know whose position prevailed on the final passage vote.

Moments ago...

Voting on Hayden nomination now.

UPDATE: Hayden is confirmed 78-15

UPDATE: Dems who voted for cloture last night on the Kavanaugh nomination: Biden, Byrd, Carper, Feinstein, Kohl, Landireu, Lieberman, Lincoln, Nelson, Nelson, Obama, Pryor

Dems who voted for confirmation: Byrd, Carper, Landriue, Nelson (NE)

Senator Rick Santorum hits the nail on the head with this piece about the Senate immigration reform bill:

Instead of deterring illegal behavior, S. 2611 rewards illegal immigrants by putting our current elderly beneficiaries, who paid into the Social Security system for decades in order to collect the benefits they receive today, further at risk in an already stretched system. Additionally, Robert Rector from the Heritage Foundation conservatively estimates that this bill could increase welfare costs by some $11.4 billion per year.

The Senate will vote on final passage of the immigration reform bill this evening. Senator John Cornyn, for one, will vote against the bill. In a statement released today Cornyn said:

Cornyn is right to be worried. We are indeed repeating history.

The rest of Cornyn's statement is in the extended section

President Bush has ordered the documents obtained by FBI agents in the raid of Rep. Jefferson's office to be sealed for 45 days.

Republicans had better figure out this communication nightmare very quickly. I have clearly been sympathetic to the arguments about congressional prerogatives, but this is a bad move. Hastert and company need to figure out a way to get passed this and ensure that Jefferson is prosecuted to the full extent of the law in a timely fashion.

A month and a half delay will not do.

...and me apparently. My column this morning drew much criticism from Townhall readers. As I have reread my column I concede that I was perhaps a bit too nuanced -- or maybe more accurately, too muddled. Many readers came away from my column thinking I was sticking up for Rep. Jefferson's noncompliance with a subpoena. Others thought that I was sticking up for what they perceive to be a Congress that thinks it is above the rule of law.

I intended neither. Jefferson's slimy dealings should be dealt with and Congress is not above the law. I think congressmen should abide with the first plank of the 1994 Contract with America in which Republicans promised that they would abide by all the laws and rules that everyday Americans abide by.

My point on this whole Jefferson FBI raid fiasco is simple: Congress has every right to jealously guard its time honored prerogatives as do the other co-equal branches of government. A healthy friction between the executive and legislative branch was intended by the Framers of the Constitution.

It is right and yes, principled, for members of Congress to be concerned about an executive branch raid on the Congress. Are there some members who will make this argument on unprincipled grounds hoping to save their own skin? Sure...but that does not mean there is not a principled argument to be made.

This has never happened in 219 years. Indeed, during that time the executive and legislative branches have always found ways to resolve such issues without resorting to brute force. That is proper.

I don't know about you, but I am uncomfortable with a federal government whose co-equal branches are conducting unannounced raids on one another. That just doesn't seem right.

There is also a difference between individuals and institutions. Rep. Jefferson is an individual who should be entitled to no special treatment. But Congressional property is part of a co-equal branch of government, an institution.

Also, it is not irrelevant to note that this whole situation could have easily been resolved with a simple phone call to Capitol police, the Speaker's office or House general counsel. Does anybody really believe that the Speaker's office would not have let the FBI go after a Democrat for a corruption charge?

Now that the political mess has been made, there seems to be only one way out for Speaker Hastert. He should convene congressional leaders and top DOJ officials to establish a protocol for future situations like this. The protocol should be acceptable to DOJ and congress and people should start playing nice.

Speaking of playing nice, does it not seem at all fishy to anyone that the day after Hastert made an issue about the FBI raid DOJ anonymously leaked a story to ABC news that Hastert was the subject of an investigation? Soon thereafter DOJ officially disputed the leak but the damage had been done. That is playing dirty: you mess with us and we will get you back. Of course this is speculation...but I digress...

Finally, a word of advice to congressional leaders: Next time an issue like this comes up, defend traditional legislative branch prerogatives, but don't hold a press conference for all the world to see in which you appear to legitimate Americans' already prevelant concerns about a Congress that considers itself above the law. Instead, call the Attorney General and get the President on the phone. Have a stern, serious and off-the-record conversation.

There may have been no worse way to handle this issue politically. And as a consequence, the real argument for respect amongst the co-equal branches of government has been lost.

I did not catch it, but a friend on the Hill tells me that Senator John McCain this morning took the floor to complain about amendments being offered to the immigration reform bill by conservatives. Apparently McCain joined Harry Reid by making a ridiculous insinuation: what’s next, he asked, an amendment to make them “ride on the back of the bus?”

Lame and pathetic... 

Next week the House and Senate will be gone for Memorial Day recess. When they return the week of June 5th the Senate is slated to consider Senator Daniel Akaka's Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act.

As has been noted many times before, Akaka's bill would create an extra-constitutional race-based governing entity.

Below are some links to relevant information about the topic.

Read:

Why Congress must reject race based government for native Hawaiians

What does the United States owe to Native Hawaiians?

How do Hawaiians feel about the Akaka bill?

Most Hawaiians oppose Akaka

Why all Americans should oppose race-based governing

NOTE: Senator Lamar Alexander will headline the following event tomorrow: An unconstitutional act is back: the return of the Native Hawaiian Sovereignty Act

The Club for Growth is racking up primary victories. Great stuff...Chris Cillizza reports:

The Washington, D.C.-based political organization, which is dedicated to supporting laissez faire capitalism, has scored a slew of GOP primary victories so far this month. It began in Ohio on May 2 where the group backed state Sen. Jim Jordan in the open 4th District House race and Secretary of State Ken Blackwell in the governor's race.

A week later, state Sen. Adrian Smith -- the Club-endorsed candidate -- won a crowded Republican primary in the western Nebraska 3rd District. On May 16, Club for Growth President Pat Toomey and the club's Pennsylvania chapter helped organize conservatives to vote against GOP state legislators who had approved a pay raise for themselves. Seventeen legislators members wound up losing their primary races, 13 of whom were Republicans.

Then, last night, another Club-backed candidate, state Rep. Bill Sali, won a six-way GOP primary to claim the nomination in Idaho's 1st District.

This, no doubt, will be an unpopular column. Today I argue that despite the politics of the situation, Congressional leaders who are demanding the FBI return documents obtained from the raid of Rep. Jefferson's office are doing so because of principle. I do not wholeheartedly condon their constitutional arguments because I am not qualified to do so. But I do believe that an argument that is made because of principle, no matter how politically tone deaf, deserves to be heard.

Many believe GOP leadership's argument is terrible politics...and it is. It makes Americans who are already rightly suspicious of Congres even more so. It makes Congress look as if it considers itself above the law. But that is not the issue.

The simple fact is that this who affair could have been avoided with one heads up call to the House counsel or to Capitol police.

Also worth considering is the precedent this sets. Do we want a future administration who may be obsessed with political agendas to be able to raid political opponents offices willy nilly? Yes, I know a judge granted a warrant. But there are lots of judges out there that will grant a warrant...this is worth thinking about. 

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.