VoteKansas.org

Last week it was noted that negotiators on the Senate-passed emergency supplemental spending bill which now faces a conference with the House of Representatives may attempt to cut defense spending in the bill to salvage pork projects inserted by various Senators.

A reminder:

Need proof of how pork-addicted Congress has become? Consider this: Some in the Senate are looking for ways to shift funds from the troops in Iraq to some of their favorite pet projects.

At risk is the $94.4 supplemental spending bill President Bush requested from Congress to provide $92 billion for hurricane relief and the troops in Iraq and $2.4 billion for avian flu response. Despite his warning that anything above this amount would lead to a veto, several senators abused the must-pass status of the legislation to add $14 billion in wasteful pork-barrel goodies for influential constituents, labor unions and corporations.

Today, National Journal's Congress Daily AM provides an update: 

The Pentagon is urging lawmakers to act before the recess on at least the $67.6 billion troop-funding portion. But lawmakers are likely to shave that total as well to produce savings that might be used elsewhere in the bill. The Senate has already demonstrated it is willing to cut the defense request, which it did to offset a $1.9 billion border security package backed by Majority Leader Frist and Budget Chairman Gregg.

The White House should veto any bill that sacrifices troop funding for Railroads to Nowhere. It is not enough for Congress to simply comply with the President's number of 94.5 billion for the bill. Congress should comply with the spirit of the "emergency" supplemental bill which was intended to address emergencies -- namely, the war in Iraq and Katrina recovery -- not pork projects. 

Fortunately, it appears GOP leadership in the House of Representatives has heard this message loud and clear. 

It appears that Bush's immigration speech last night failed to inspire the conservative blogosphere. To quite the contrary in many quarters...here is a sampling:

Polipundit thinks Bush is lying. In fact, the issue has become so central at Polipundit that some bloggers on the group blog are quitting over a new editorial policy.

The Belmont Club:

What would really be interesting is some sense of what this translates to in actual numbers. How many illegal aliens can be expected to cross despite the proposed beefing up of the border? How many deportations can be expected per year? What industries will suffer from penalties on hiring illegals? How many will qualify for the "path to citizenship"? How many are going to be shipped out? The devil is in the details.

Captain Ed reacts:

My initial reaction? President Bush tried reaching for the center -- a position he has occupied on this issue all along. He tried a one-from-column-A, two-from-column-B approach that probably will leave all sides more or less dissatisfied. His declaration that catch-and-release would end was the most welcome news in the entire speech. He delivered that well and sounded forceful and presidential, but most people will wonder why this practice didn't end on September 12, 2001. His tone remained measured and firm and he insisted that Congress pass a comprehensive plan that includes both tight security and normalization.

Michelle Malkin watched the speech with Tom Tancredo and then went on the O'Reilly Factor to respond. She also blogs her reaction, "same old, same old."

Powerline's Hinderaker thinks Bush blew it:

Hugh Hewitt calls it a good start but notes that the conservative blogosphere is quickly turning against the speech. I think the blogosphere was predisposed to be against this speech, and absent the most hard line of speeches, Bush was not going to get a favorable reaction from conservatives who are already in a very distrusting mood.

Finally, Hotline on Call has a roundup of media reactions, Right Angle has the pols' reactions and Pajamas Media has an authoritative roundup from the blogs.

Karl Rove told a group of conservatives that the GOP would be fine in this year's midterm elections. "But I'm absolutely confident that -- I heard this same kind of language about the 2004 elections in roughly the March, April, May, June period of June 2004," said Rove. "We're going to be just fine in the fall elections."

On that point I disagree. From my vantage point, conservative angst, especially in regards to spending, has only grown since 2004. With the implementation of the Medicare Drug Benefit and the recent fights over pork barrel bridges and railroads to nowhere and an emormous transportation bill conservative rank and file supporters have more to be upset about now than they did 2 years ago.

Neverthless, Rove made an excellent point in his speech:

And we're going to be fine because we stand for things that are important. We stand for strong natural defense abroad and complete victory in the war on terrorism which involves victory in Iraq.

We stand for a strong national defense. We stand for economic policies that are pro-growth, involving tax cuts and free trade. We are strongly for fiscal restraint in the budget process.

And our opponents, at this point, stand for little or nothing, except mere obstructionism. Whether it is the nomination of superbly qualified men and women to the judiciary, or our policies to reauthorize the Patriot Act to keep America safe in a time of global terror, the other party seems to stand for little except obstructionism.

That is the truth. As the case has been so often in recent elections, the rudderless Democrats are their own worst enemy. Now, if we could just get Republicans to stop being THEIR OWN worst enemy by enacting conservative legislation and trimming the size and scope of the federal government, then Rove's predictions about GOP success in 2006 may prove true. 

I just returned from a press conference on the Hill in which Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions unveiled research from his own staff and the Heritage Foundation that estimates the Hagel/Martinez legislation under consideration in the Senate will lead to over 100 million immigrants over the next 20 years.

Much more on the presser to come...

UPDATE: See Fox News coverage of this new report here and here.

And be sure to check out the various posts regarding this topic at the Heritage Policy Blog.

UPDATE: Powerline's Paul Mirengoff:

According to the Times, the percentage of work visas that would go to the highly educated or highly skilled would be cut in half to about 30 percent while the percentage of work visas that go to unskilled laborers would more than triple. In hard numbers, the highest skilled workers would be granted 135,000 visas annually, while the unskilled would be granted 150,000 annually. This would constitute a reversal of our traditionally preferred concept of immigration (in theory, at least) under which we concentrate on bringing in highly educated, highly skilled immigrants.

As Rector concludes, the Hagel-Martinez legislation would lead to a rapid and fundamental transformation of the social, economic, and political nature of our society. This fact needs to be brought into the open and discussed -- something the bill's supporters seem reluctant to do.

More from Little Green Footballs and Right Angle.

UPDATE: Mark Levin posts a Jeff Sessions press release. 

This report from today's Washington Post explains how the House of Representatives -- the people's body -- is holding the conservative line against the more liberal versions of the immigration bill and emergency spending bill coming out of the Senate:

Massive street demonstrations by illegal immigrants and their supporters against a House-passed bill to get tough on undocumented workers appear to have struck a sympathetic chord with most Americans. A New York Times/CBS poll last week found that 66 percent oppose the House's measure to build hundreds of miles of fences along the southern border. Sixty-one percent said illegal immigrants who have lived and worked in the United States for at least two years should be given a chance to keep their jobs and eventually apply for legal status. Just 35 percent agreed with the House's position that they should be deported.

But House members say they are convinced that their voters came to a very different conclusion from the marches -- the problem of illegal immigration is even more troubling than they thought, and House Republicans must stand by their position.

House Republicans are also listening to conservatives who were infuriated when GOP leaders reacted to rising gasoline prices by proposing tax increases to pay for gasoline rebates and by suggesting the problem lay with price-gouging by the oil companies.

Meanwhile, this report from the New York Times (I know, I know...) has more bad news for Republicans. Not only are fiscal conservatives upset with the direction of the GOP-led Congress, but social conservatives appear to be as well:

Mike Franc's column today about immigration is a must read. Expect this portion, in which he quotes new findings from the Heritage Foundation's Robert Rector, to play a controversial role in the Senate debate next week on immigration.

According to Heritage Foundation welfare expert Robert Rector, the overwhelming majority of Americans has it right. Rector reviewed the economic literature on the fiscal effects of immigration and found that the skills level of those awarded citizenship is a crucial factor in assessing their fiscal impact. It’s positive for immigrants with some college education, mixed for those with a high-school degree, and negative for high-school dropouts. “This is important,” Rector notes, “because half of adult illegal immigrants in the U.S. … have less than a high-school education.”

The left, as well as the pro-amnesty Republican caucus, will not be happy about these findings. But the findings will be backed up by data and facts and will deserve ample consideration.

Read Franc's whole column to get a preview of a potentially messy floor fight next week in the Senate.

Via Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's blog:

And they did it with virtually zero help from the tax and spend more Democrats. 

House Appropriations Chairman Jerry Lewis is being investigated as part of the Cunningham probe.

The LA Times reports:

Federal prosecutors have begun an investigation into Rep. Jerry Lewis, the Californian who chairs the powerful House Appropriations Committee, government officials and others said, signaling the spread of a San Diego corruption probe.

The U.S. attorney's office in Los Angeles has issued subpoenas in an investigation into the relationship between Lewis (R-Redlands) and a Washington lobbyist linked to disgraced former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Rancho Santa Fe), three people familiar with the investigation said.

The key paragraph: 

It is not clear where the investigation is headed or what evidence the government has. But the probe suggests that investigators are looking past Cunningham to other legislators and, perhaps, the "earmarking" system that members of Congress use to allocate funds.

Aside from the fact that earmarking greases the skids for bad legislation...and aside from the fact that it often leads to bloated spending bills chock full of extraneous projects...it just plain looks bad.

There is almost no way to secure an earmark without at least the appearance of impropriety or a quid pro quo. The earmarking process itself opens lawmakers -- upright and corrupt alike -- up to these types of allegations.

From my column this morning:

"You are going to have to be radical," Luntz told one group. By radical, of course, he meant conservative -- the way Republicans used to be conservative a la 1994. Absent this "radical" return to conservative principles, the conservative base voter is likely to sit out come November, resulting in a GOP bloodbath at the polls.

Luntz is reminding anybody who will listen that the current numbers are dismal. President Bush’s approval ratings are in the low 30’s and dropping while most generic congressional polls show Democrats holding double digit advantages -- some as high as 18 points -- over Republicans. Compare these numbers to only a six-point generic Republican advantage and a low 40’s approval rating for President Clinton heading into the 1994 elections, and you have the recipe for a GOP disaster this fall.

According to the AP, the Senate will resume the debate on immigration reform next week and spend as long as two weeks on the measure. Insiders I have spoken to are skeptical about the chances for the Senate to reach an agreement and even more skeptical about final passage of an overall bill. At issue with final passage is the naming of Senate conferees to negotiate with the House.

Reid has insisted that once the bill is passed, those who support protecting illegal immigrants from deportation must control the Senate team that will negotiate with the House in conference in developing a final bill.

"Unless there is agreement on conference, the bill will go nowhere. Nowhere," Reid said Wednesday.

So Harry Reid, who insists that he is against amnesty, is demanding that certain members be named as conferees who will "protect illegal immigrants from deportation." That's not amnesty? 

Texas Senator John Cornyn today called on Democrats to drop their threat of a filibuster against judicial nominee Brett Kavanaugh:

“If there's going to be a fight, then I think we ought to take it on and let the American people decide which side of the fight they agree with. Democrats should end this empty threat, but if they don’t, we’re ready.”

30 Representatives in the House have penned a letter to their leadership asking them to hold the line on spending. Porkbusters has the details.

Perhaps what is most notable about this letter is who did not sign it. Limited government stalwarts like Mike Pence and John Shadegg did not sign the letter.

I am not hitting them for not signing it. I can think of at least a couple reasons why they wouldn't, the most obvious reason being that House leadership has been very up front about their determination to stop the Senate's big-spending railroad to nowhere-containing boondoggle in its tracks (pun intended). The second being that they may not be around to sign it. Pence has been overseas doing great things (read about them here), thus he may not have been around when the letter was being signed.

Nevertheless, this letter is well written and contains a great message -- a message the GOP needs to hammer home over the next 6 months. Cutting the wasteful spending contained in this bill will be a great start.

Yesterday, Heritage's Andrew Grossman brought to our attention the possibility of pork funding being funnelled to projects out of funding intended for for troops. Today, Heritage President Ed Feulner weighs in:

At risk is the $94.4 supplemental spending bill President Bush requested from Congress to provide $92 billion for hurricane relief and the troops in Iraq and $2.4 billion for avian flu response. Despite his warning that anything above this amount would lead to a veto, several senators abused the must-pass status of the legislation to add $14 billion in wasteful pork-barrel goodies for influential constituents, labor unions and corporations.

Hmmm...

Via Sixers blog...House Republicans today will roll out a "suburban agenda" at 1:00. 

By all accounts judicial nominee Brett Kavanaugh successfully navigated the treacherous waters of yesterday's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.

Ed Whelan says Democrats' attempts to tar the nominee were "ineffectual": 

The second hearing on Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the D.C. Circuit ended some minutes ago. I watched the bulk of the hearing at my desk while trying to get some real work done. Kavanaugh did an excellent job (as did Chairman Specter), and the committee Democrats were ineffectual at best.

Specter made clear at the end of the hearing that the committee vote to report Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Senate floor will take place on Thursday. I would be very surprised if the Democrats actually try to filibuster Kavanaugh’s nomination, but perhaps Senator Kerry has planned another trip to Davos, Switzerland.

Congress Daily reports that "Kavanaugh breezes though 2nd judicial nomination hearing": 

An unruffled Brett Kavanaugh weathered a barrage of critical Democratic questions Tuesday and pledged to be nonpartisan if confirmed as a judge on U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Hugh Hewitt is happy with the progress and makes two points: 

First, the White House got some momentum and needs to get at least the circuit court names released asap, especially those for the D.C. Circuit, which must become the priority for the Judiciary Committee staff.

Second, anything less than an up or down vote on all judicial nominees other than those named by the Gang of 14 a year ago deeply damage McCain's campaign, as it will underscore that he got hornswaggled again by Dems, just as with McCain-Feingold and McCain-Kennedy. Specifically, there are no "extraordinary circumstances" surrounding nominees Boyle or Haynes. If either lacks 51 votes, so be it.

A friend on the Hill points out this huge contradiction within the Democratic caucus:

- Confident Democrats Lay Out Agenda, By Jonathan Weisman Washington Post, May 7, 2006

But Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid says investigations should be “at the bottom” of the agenda

“I'm not heavy into investigations. I think that should be way down at the bottom of our agenda.”

- Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), media availability, May 9, 2006

I am going to predict the Pelosi wing wins out on this one if the Dems gain power. 

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas have come to an agreement on a $70 billion tax cut package setting the two chambers up for a vote later this week.

Congress Daily has the details:

At the core of the reconciliation agreement is a two-year extension of the capital gains and dividend tax cut, through 2010, and a one-year alternative minimum tax patch that protects 15.3 million taxpayers from having to pay the tax in 2006. The bill also will boost allowable expensing limits for small businesses under Section 179. It also extends for one year a tax benefit that allows multinational companies to defer taxes on their "active financing" income earned overseas.

In a press release, House Majority Leader John Boehner praised the agreement: