Other Political News

[Soldier4Christ]

'Do-Nothing Congress' Raises Critics' Ire

What Would Harry Truman Say About This Group of Legislators?

Members of Congress know the Washington-area airports very well. Most members use them twice a week, arriving for work late Tuesday and scurrying back to their home states on Thursday. Congress is on schedule to meet fewer days this year than any Congress since 1948 — the year President Harry Truman campaigned against what he called the "do-nothing Congress."

"They call it the Tuesday to Thursday Club," said Rep. Jim Cooper, D-Tenn. "That means you get here Tuesday night, you have a few easy votes, you vote on Wednesday and then you go back home Thursday afternoon. And that, believe it or not, is considered a work week in Washington."

Rank-and-file members of Congress earn $165,200 a year, and this year for the first time they took off for a St. Patrick's Day holiday.

Rep. Gene Green, D-Texas, said voters wonder why he spends so much time in Houston instead of Washington. "I've been hearing from people saying they see me more than they do their city council member," Green said.

He said that is one reason Congress is held in low esteem, adding, "poll numbers for Congress are dismally low, in fact lower than the president's." A recent Associated Press poll found that only 25 percent of the country approves of the job Congress is doing.

"What first caught my attention was seeing that the House was going to take the entire month of January off and then be here basically three days in February," Congress-watcher Norm Ornstein from the American Enterprise Institute said.

He added, "It's stunning to see how much time off there is, how little time is being spent in Washington doing any of the people's business."

Even members from Hawaii jet home for long weekends, unthinkable not so long ago. Under both Democratic and Republican leadership, the work schedule has gradually decreased: In the '60s and '70s, Congress met on average 162 days a year; in the '80s and '90s, 139 days. This year the House is expected to meet 71 days.

Of course, some voters think that is a good thing. "For those who really believe in limited government, then there's virtue in being away from Washington," said Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz. "It's not all bad that we spend less time here. A lot of what we do and a lot of the disdain people have for Washington is because we do too much, not too little."

Flake broke into a hearty laugh when he said, "I still believe that if people understood exactly what we do here, they'd probably demand we take more time off."

Enough Time for Oversight?

But even the conservative Flake said Congress has failed to spend the time needed for oversight of federal agencies. He worries that in the rush to get out of town each week, Congress does not pay enough attention to how the government spends the taxpayers' money.

Ornstein also said he believes Congress is failing in its oversight responsibilities. He said if Congress had paid more attention to FEMA in recent years, then the disaster agency would have been more prepared to deal with Hurricane Katrina.

Important bills are now rushed through Congress, resulting in sloppy legislation, Ornstein said. Among the examples of such legislation, he said, are the Medicare prescription drug bill that perplexed many senior citizens and the bankruptcy reform bill that has come back to haunt Katrina victims faced with ruin.

Ornstein and other critics also believe the government's failure to deal efficiently with Katrina can be blamed partly on congressional haste in setting up the new Department of Homeland Security, which had overall responsibility for disaster relief.

"When I go back home to the Rotary Club and tell them we're meeting so few days, sometimes they think that's good news," said Rep. Jim Cooper, D-Tenn. "But it's really bad news for America because we're simply not doing our jobs. They're paying us full salaries, but we're not working full time."

Many in Congress point out that they do some work when they go back home — they meet with constituents and learn what the voters really want. But as money has become more important in election campaigns, many House members and senators also spend a great deal of time in their states raising funds for re-election.

Nothing 'Worth a Toot'

Congress has accomplished some things this year, perhaps most notably this week passing tax cut legislation. But all in all, this has not been a productive year, leading to Mississippi Sen. Trent Lott's recent comment, "We haven't done anything worth a toot in three months."

Because Congress spends less time in Washington, members spend less time with one another. Gone are the days when members from rival parties and factions had plenty of time to socialize together, perhaps in the evening to partake of a little "bourbon and branch water." Those informal get-togethers were often crucial to reaching compromises on important, sometimes historic, legislation.

This Congress can still avoid the "do-nothing" label. But it has precious little time to do it. An immigration bill is a top priority for President Bush and many on Capitol Hill.

The trouble is finding a compromise that can pass both houses and get the president's signature. That is a time-consuming process, but so far Congress is sticking pretty much to its three-day-a-week routine. And Congress does not want to deal with complicated legislation this fall because this is an election year.

Green said voters will be watching. "They would like to see our work product improved," he said, "and if that includes an extra day a week, so be it."

[Soldier4Christ]

 Real ID ban dead
Senate, House lock horns on bill


State lawmakers yesterday ended a nationally watched attempt to keep New Hampshire from participating in stricter federal drivers' licensing rules. As a result, New Hampshire will likely become a testing ground for the new program, known as Real ID, which requires states to verify drivers' birth certificates, addresses and immigration status and to enter that information into a shared database.

Congress designed the system last year to reduce illegal immigration and deter terrorists, but opponents believe it's an invasion of privacy and the first step towards a national identification card.

After a complicated series of votes and hours of debate, lawmakers rejected two versions of a bill that would have barred New Hampshire from participating in Real ID. Lawmakers have been at odds for weeks over the plan: The Senate wanted to accept a $3 million federal grant in exchange for trying out the program. The House, meanwhile, was gaining national attention for trying to pass a law against it.

Yesterday, the Senate won, but victory came at a cost: The demise of a bill that would have granted the health commissioner broad emergency powers in the event of a pandemic.

"This is a classic case of legislative chicken between the House and the Senate,"said Rep. Neal Kurk, before leading his colleagues through a parliamentary gamble aimed at getting the Senate to change its opinion of Real ID.

Kurk, a Weare Republican, has been among the most vocal opponents of Real ID. When two-thirds of the House voted in favor of bucking the program, he earned the praise of privacy advocates, those who favor limited government and a group of Christians who believe a national ID card is the Biblical "mark of the beast" and, thus, a harbinger of the Apocalypse.

Real ID has also upset the National Governor's Association and the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, who predict it will be too costly and time-consuming for many states.

At the same time the Real ID opposition was gaining furor in the House, senators were crafting a bill to help the state prepare for a health emergency, such as a pandemic flu. The proposal would have allowed the health commission, with the governor's approval, to seize and ration drugs, close buildings and prohibit public assemblies.

When the Senate voted to send the Real ID bill to a study committee instead of condemning the program, Kurk decided to use the pandemic proposal as an insurance policy. Yesterday, Kurk persuaded the House to vote down the pandemic bill in an effort to force the Senate to negotiate over Real ID. But the Senate called his bluff and refused to budge.

"A message was sent to the Senate, and a message was sent to the people of New Hampshire that their representatives have heard them," Kurk said. "This is not an extremist position. This is where, I believe, the heart of America is, not just New Hampshire."

Once the speeches were over and the dust had settled, both bills were dead, and plenty of lawmakers were unhappy. Top Senate Republicans chastised Kurk for putting privacy concerns over public safety, and they accused him of siding with groups like the Free State Project, a movement of libertarians who are migrating to New Hampshire to lobby for small government.

"He chose the Free-Staters over the health of the citizens of New Hampshire," said Majority Leader Bob Clegg, of Hudson. "That's wrong."

Clegg stressed that, before accepting the federal money, the state's Fiscal Committee would likely examine how to preserve privacy while tightening security. New Hampshire, like other states, has until 2008 to comply with the federal guidelines, which will be issued by the Department of Homeland Security this summer.

"There is nothing that stops us from forming an ad hoc committee," Clegg said.

Senate Democrats, who also oppose Real ID, said the House was forced into an impossible situation by senators who are out of touch with their constituents. Sen. Peter Burling, a Cornish Democrat, warned that the $3 million grant would cover just a fraction of the cost of Real ID. The federal law, he said, allows the government to change the rules, and could eventually to lead to licenses with computer chips or a national database of citizens.

"New Hampshire has no defense against the onset of Real ID," Burling said. "It was nothing but Republican votes that killed our defense."

[Soldier4Christ]

Cheney's gay daughter hits Bush stance on gay marriage
    

The lesbian daughter of US Vice President Dick Cheney hit out at President George W. Bush's support for a constitutional amendment proscribing gay marriage.

Mary Cheney, 37, told Fox News Sunday that the idea, which was backed strongly by Bush's Republican Party during his 2004 re-election campaign and continues to be promoted by many conservatives today, was "a bad piece of legislation".

 "I think that is what the federal marriage amendment is, it is writing discrimination into the constitution.

"It is writing discrimination into the constitution and, as I say, it is fundamentally wrong."

"I would also hope that no one would think about trying to amend the constitution as a political strategy," she added.

Cheney, who worked on her father's campaign staff in 2004, said she very nearly quit the reelection effort over the issue.

In the wake of controversial moves to make same-sex marriage legal in California and other states, conservatives pushed strongly to have the constitution amended to define marriage as strictly between a man and a woman.

The effort failed in mid-2004, but a number of individual states passed their own initiatives to restrict marriage to traditional male-female couples.

Cheney, who has just published a book, "It's My Turn", covering in part her experience during the campaign, said she was troubled by the stance of the party she was backing.

"President Bush obviously feels very strongly about this issue ... Quite honestly, it was an issue I had some trouble with, as I talk about in the book. I came very close to quitting my job on the re-election campaign over this very issue."

But she said she was also "very angry" when Bush and Dick Cheney's opponents in the campaign, Senators John Kerry and John Edwards, challenged the Bush stance by publicly pointing out that Mary Cheney was a lesbian.

"It was a cheap and blatant political ploy" when Edwards used her as an example in debating the issue with her father, Mary Cheney said.

Speaking separately on Fox News Sunday, Bush's wife Laura noted the issue of gay marriage still sparked debate across the country.

"I don't think it should be used as a campaign tool, obviously," she said.

"But I do think it's something that people in the United States want to debate. And it requires a lot of sensitivity to talk about the issue, a lot of sensitivity."

[Soldier4Christ]

Pro-Family Supporters Frustrated Over Stalled Broadcast Decency Bill
Also, CWA Applauds ICANN's Rejection of Proposed .XXX Porn Domain



(AgapePress) - Congressman Fred Upton's broadcast decency bill (HR 310) passed in the House with a vote of 389-38 last year, but the Senate version has faced delay after delay in getting through the other chamber of Congress. And now, supporters of the measure fear it may be close to death as Senate rules have the legislation, S 193, bottled up in committee.

The bill, sponsored by Republican Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas, would increase the maximum fines levied by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from $32,500 to $325,000 per violation. Support for increasing the penalties has grown ever since the 2004 Super Bowl Halftime Show broadcast, when a performance by singers Justin Timberlake and Janet Jackson ended abruptly in a now notorious instance of indecent exposure due to a so-called "wardrobe malfunction."

According to the Los Angeles Times newspaper, similar legislation has overwhelmingly passed the U.S. House of Representatives twice and the Senate once. However, the Times reports, such broadcast decency regulation measures have lately been derailed in Senate by parliamentary procedure and by objections from influential senators. Also, members of the broadcast industry have voiced strong resistance to the idea of higher fines and have lobbied hard in opposition to them.

Lanier Swann of Concerned Women for America (CWA) says several senators are against the idea of increasing fines for decency violations. "Majority Leader Frist had hoped to hotline that bill and bring it to the floor for a vote by a unanimous consent," she notes, "but unfortunately, a number of senators placed a hold on the bill."

Many pro-family groups thought Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens of Alaska was purposely holding up the bill, but Swann says, "We know now that Chairman Stevens agreed to the hotline vote with the Majority Leader. So what we have now are a number of unnamed senators who have come forward and held up this bill."

The CWA spokeswoman points out that Senate rules allow senators to put a hold on bills they dislike anonymously, which is the case here. "Now what we're working on is trying to find a way that we can see final passage out of both chambers on any type of legislation that would simply increase the FCC fines," she says.

Swann says it is "high time" lawmakers crack down on "the garbage that comes through the airwaves" by increasing penalties against those broadcasters that air material that defies federal decency standards. She urges citizens to contact their representatives in Congress and voice support for legislation aimed at raising fines against broadcast decency violators.

ICANN's Nixes .XXX Domain Idea
But although the progress of Representative Upton's broadcast decency bill through Congress has been slow and frequently stalled, CWA has been monitoring another fight in which the pro-family group is seeing some encouraging progress. Recently, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) rejected a special .xxx domain for pornography sites on the World Wide Web.

The 9-5 decision by the private agency that oversees Internet operation reverses its preliminary approval last June of a domain name for voluntary use by the adult entertainment industry. CWA's chief counsel Jan LaRue is calling the vote "a win against a multi-million dollar, six-year effort on behalf of the porn industry." She says the vote demonstrates the power "regular folks" can have by raising their voices against "the power-brokers who think they can run the universe without opposition."

Last year LaRue met with officials at the Department of Commerce to express vehement opposition to the new .xxx domain. CWA urged its members and supporters to contact government officials and voice their disapproval of the idea as well.

After the Department of Commerce received thousands of e-mails voicing similar objections, the Bush administration announced its opposition to the creation of the domain. Opposition letters were also sent to Paul Twomey, CEO of ICANN, who later told media that the ICANN board was "certainly very conscious" of the controversy, although its decision to reject the .xxx domain was not driven by political considerations.

LaRue says the pro-family group objected to the porn domain for several reasons, but the most obvious concern was that, under this plan, porn site operators would be free to keep all their current domains while adding the new .xxx domain. "Anybody who thinks that would help parents protect kids from porn on the Internet has crashed in the cranium," she says.

CWA's chief counsel considers the decision by ICANN a major victory indicating the power of the pro-family public, and she is hopeful that this turn of events will send a clear message to U.S. lawmakers. "Now that ICANN has had the good sense to listen to the American people," she asserts, "those in Congress who are proposing legislation to create a porn domain need to take a virtual reality check."

The special .xxx porn domain was a bad idea for many reasons, LaRue contends. Among these, she contends, is that the domain would appear to legitimize the porn industry and its creation would mean, in effect, allowing an industry that violates federal obscenity laws with impunity to regulate itself.

[Soldier4Christ]

Sen. Clinton apologizes for work ethic remarks
Lawmaker tells daughter, ‘I didn’t mean to convey ... you don’t work hard’

After telling an audience that young people today “think work is a four-letter word,” Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said she apologized to her daughter.

“I said, ‘I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to convey the impression that you don’t work hard,”’ Clinton said Sunday in a commencement address at Long Island University. “I just want to set the bar high, because we are in a competition for the future.”

Clinton spoke to more than 2,000 graduates days after she criticized young people at a gathering of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Washington. In those remarks, she said young people have a sense of entitlement after growing up in a “culture that has a premium on instant gratification.”

The senator said that her daughter, Chelsea, phoned to complain after learning about the comments. The 26-year-old was hired in 2003 by McKinsey & Co. as a consultant, reportedly for a six-figure salary. She received a master’s degree from Oxford University after graduating from Stanford University in 2001.

“She called and she said, ‘Mom, I do work hard and my friends work hard,”’ Clinton said Sunday.

___________________


I think that she suffers from a very serious case of hoof in mouth disease. She is always having to "apologize" for her statements.

[Soldier4Christ]

Calif. Senate passes 'gay history' textbook bill, sends to assembly; governor silent


A landmark bill that would require public school textbooks in California to include "gay history" passed the California Senate May 11 by a mostly party-line vote of 22-15, and now heads to the Assembly.

The bill, S.B. 1437, would mandate that textbooks include "the contributions of people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender to the total development of California and the United States." It would also prevent teachers from speaking "adversely" about homosexuality.

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, has not taken a public position on the bill.

Conservatives nationwide are watching the debate closely, since California is the nation's largest textbook purchaser, and conservatives fear the bill's passage eventually could impact the rest of the country.

All of the Senate's 14 Republicans voted against the bill. Twenty-two of the Senate's 25 Democrats voted for the bill, one voted against it and two did not vote. Democrats also have a majority in the Assembly.

Randy Thomasson, president of California-based Campaign for Children and Families, said it was ironic that that the bill passed days before Mothers Day -- a holiday traditionally focused on the natural, traditional family.

"By passing S.B. 1437, Democrat politicians have declared war on mothers and fathers and their children," Thomasson said in a statement. "This terrible bill forces local schools to go against parents by mandating transsexual, bisexual, and homosexual ‘education’ upon their impressionable children. Whose children are they, anyway? This mental molestation of kids as young as kindergarten is very wrong. Children deserve academics, not sexual indoctrination."

The bill was sponsored by Democratic state Sen. Sheila Kuehl, a lesbian.

"All we're saying is let us also be reflected in history," Kuehl said, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.

Bill supporters said homosexuals should be reflected in history just as blacks and other minorities are. But state Sen. Bill Morrow, Republican, disagreed.

"If you are a black American, you can't help it, you were born that way," Morrow said, according to the San Jose Mercury-News. "There is not one scintilla of credible scientific evidence that suggests that homosexuality is biological in origin ... It is behavioral; it is not racial."

[Soldier4Christ]

Hillary's dismissal in fraud suit appealed
Senator reportedly has false statement on file with IRS

Business mogul Peter Franklin Paul is appealing a California court's decision to dismiss Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., as a defendant in his lawsuit charging her husband, former President Clinton, with fraud.

Meanwhile, an election watchdog says Sen. Clinton has false campaign-finance statements on file with the Internal Revenue Service.

Paul – who says Sen. Clinton made false statements in two Washington Post articles to hide his million-dollar-plus contributions in 2000 – sued Bill Clinton for fraud for destroying his public company so the former president could renege on a $17 million deal in which he promised to promote Paul's public company in exchange for massive contributions to his wife's Senate campaign.

Paul's representative, the United States Justice Foundation, filed the appeal last week with the Appeals Court of California to challenge a trial court decision in April granting Sen. Clinton First Amendment immunity.

As WorldNetDaily reported, a judge in Los Angeles dismissed Sen. Clinton as a defendant in the civil lawsuit, but she will be deposed as a material witness in preparation for a trial set to begin March, 27, 2007.

Paul, claiming Sen. Clinton pulled off the biggest campaign-finance fraud in history, separately is preparing to file his second complaint with the Federal Election Commission charging the Democratic senator with submitting a false report – for a fourth time – that hides his personal multi-million dollar contributions to three Hollywood fund-raisers he hosted on her behalf, including the largest of her campaign, a Hollywood gala. Paul's first FEC complaint resulted in an admission last December that Sen. Clinton's campaign filed false reports with the FEC, hiding more than $720,000 of Paul's contributions.

USJF argues Clinton had no right to invoke California's Anti-SLAPP law, designed to protect candidates from being silenced by frivolous lawsuits during their election campaigns.

Paul says Clinton invoked that law only after her motion-to-dismiss was denied by the California Supreme Court. The Judge exercised his discretion to ignore that Clinton's Anti-SLAPP appeal was filed six months late, under California law.

"Hillary's cynical use of a law intended to protect resource-poor candidates whose freedom of expression during a campaign is challenged" shows "total disdain and contempt" for the Constitution, Paul said.

In a related development, the online election-finance watchdog PolitcalMoneyline says Sen. Clinton filed reports with the Internal Revenue Service identical to reports admitted as false by in her campaign's settlement with the FEC.

PoliticalMoneyline says, "Although the federal account of New York Senate 2000 has amended their reports with the Federal Election Commission, the non-federal account (a Section 527 organization) of the committee has not filed corresponding amendments with the IRS."

Paul is preparing a new complaint with the FEC that seeks to revoke a conciliation agreement in which Clinton's joint fund-raising committee, New York Senate 2000 and its treasurer Andrew Grossman agreed to pay a $35,000 civil penalty for not filing complete reports.

The fourth amended report, says Paul, misrepresents former business partner Stan Lee, the famed Marvel Comics creator, as a contributor of $225,000 to Sen. Clinton's campaign and wrongly attributes Paul's holding companies as making other donations totalling some $800,000.

Clinton's former campaign finance director David Rosen was acquitted last year of campaign fraud in a trial based on the donations, but the Justice Department told the jury the contributions were made by Paul personally.

Paul says, "I specifically advised Hillary in person and in a demand letter delivered to her Senate offices in 2001 that I personally made these donations."

He claims that because his sole interest was to influence a federal election and he never chose to apply contributions that exceeded the maximum, he must be refunded everything he donated over $25,000.

Paul says "the same false information Grossman admitted reporting to the FEC to hide my contributions remains uncorrected by Sen. Clinton's campaign."

"We intend to litigate that issue all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary," Paul said.

For the civil suit, Bill and Hillary Clinton head a list of potential witnesses that includes celebrities such as Muhammad Ali, Brad Pitt, Barbra Streisand, James Brolin, Cher, Whoopi Goldberg, George Hamilton, Olivia Newton John, John Travolta, Diana Ross, Shirley McLaine, Michael Bolton, Toni Braxton, Paul Anka and Larry King.

Also on the list are former Vice President Al Gore, the Clinton's daughter Chelsea Clinton, former Attorney General John Ashcroft, Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff, former California Gov. Gray Davis, former Democratic National Committee Chairman Terrence McAuliffe, CBS News reporter Mike Wallace and ABC News reporter Brian Ross.

Paul has compiled his charges, with documentation, on a website.

The Clintons' longtime attorney David Kendall has told WorldNetDaily he would not comment on the case.

In her declaration, Sen. Clinton admitted spending time with Paul on several occasions prior to the gala and during the event but refused to deny Paul's allegations outright, instead declaring that if there was any discussion of her husband's employment with Paul, she would have remembered it.

Paul stated in his declaration to the court, "Mrs. Clinton personally assured me she would specifically discuss with her husband, the President, my interest in making a post-White House business proposal to him. She told me her understanding that such a proposal would include my offer of substantial support for her Senate campaign as a good-faith advance on the business arrangement he would be agreeing to."

[Soldier4Christ]

Senate Votes Twice for English Language

Whether English is America's "national language" or its national "common and unifying language" was a question dominating the Senate immigration debate.

The Senate first voted 63-34 to make English the national language after lawmakers who led the effort said it would promote national unity.

But critics argued the move would prevent limited English speakers from getting language assistance required by an executive order enacted under President Clinton. So the Senate also voted 58-39 to make English the nation's "common and unifying language."

"We are trying to make an assimilation statement," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., one of two dozen senators who voted Thursday for both English proposals.

White House spokesman Tony Snow said Friday that President Bush supports both measures.

"What the president has said all along is that he wants to make sure that people who become American citizens have a command of the English language," Snow said. "It's as simple as that."

Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., disputed charges that making English the national language was racist or aimed at Spanish speakers. Eleven Democrats joined Republicans in voting for his measure.

The provision makes exceptions for any language assistance already guaranteed by law, such as bilingual ballots required under the Voting Rights Act or court interpreters. It also requires immigrants seeking citizenship to demonstrate a "sufficient understanding of the English language for usage in every day life."

The Homeland Security Department is in the midst of redesigning the citizenship test and some groups have been concerned about efforts to make the test more difficult.

Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo, offered the alternative. The only Republican to vote solely for Salazar's "common and unifying" language option was Sen. Pete Domenici of New Mexico, whose home state's constitution prohibits discrimination on basis of inability to speak, read or write English or Spanish.

Both provisions will be included in an immigration bill the Senate is expected to pass and send to conference with the House, where differences will be resolved.

President Bush, who often peppers his speeches with Spanish words and phrases, had little to say about the Senate votes while visiting the Arizona-Mexico border. "The Senate needs to get the bill out," the president said.

Bush toured an unfortified section of the border in the Arizona desert Thursday, where he endorsed using fences and other barriers to cut down on illegal crossings. The Senate on Wednesday voted to put 370 miles of fences on the border.

Bush's border visit was part of his efforts to win over conservatives balking at his support for a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants and a new guest worker program.

Bush asked Congress for $1.9 billion Thursday to pay for 1,000 Border Patrol agents and the temporary deployment of up to 6,000 National Guard troops to states along the Mexican border.

His request was not warmly welcomed by some key senators.

Sen. Judd Gregg, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, delayed a vote on Bush's promotion of U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman to White House budget director to show his displeasure. He said Bush's request calls for using money for proposed for border security equipment to pay for operational exercises.

Sen. Robert Byrd, the Senate Appropriations Committee's top Democrat, complained that he had offered amendments providing for border security nine times since 2002, only to have the Bush administration reject them as extraneous spending or expanding the size of government.

"If we had spent that money beginning in 2002, we would not be calling on the National Guard today," Byrd said.

A bipartisan coalition of lawmakers supporting the immigration measure continued to hold through the week. The group was able to reverse an amendment that denied temporary workers the ability to petition on their own for legal permanent residency, a step to citizenship.

Bill supporters restored the self-petitioning with the condition the federal government certifies American workers were unavailable to fill the jobs held or sought by the temporary workers.

[Soldier4Christ]

Dodd Poised For Possible '08 Presidential Run


Sen. Christopher J. Dodd said today he has "decided to do all the things that are necessary to prepare to seek the presidency in 2008."

The Connecticut Democrat will hire staff, raise money and travel around the country in the next few months as he tries to enlist support.

Like other presidential contenders, Dodd said during a lengthy interview in his Capitol Hill office that he will not formally decide until early next year whether to make his bid official. At the moment, he joins about 10 other major Democratic Party figures who are considering a run.

Dodd came close to running in 2004 but never entered the race. Circumstances are different today -- he is not up for re-election to his Senate seat, and colleague Joe Lieberman is not running for president.

Dodd, who turns 62 Saturday, was elected by a wide margin to a fifth Senate term in 2004. He has never lost an election, but starts his White House effort as a long shot -- invisible in most presidential preference polls.

He is highly regarded among his Senate colleagues as a skilled backroom negotiator who has won passage of major legislation, notably the Family and Medical Leave Act, help for minority voters and huge budget boosts for Head Start and child care.

He has been able to get liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans to back such measures, yet he's known among Democratic insiders as an outspoken advocate for partisan causes.

Dodd came within one vote of being chosen Senate leader in 1994, and weeks later he became the Democratic National Committee's general chairman. He overcame early skepticism by many party leaders outside New England and proved to be a popular partisan speaker around the country, particularly with minority constituencies.

But a Dodd White House run would faces numerous hurdles. He lacks the name recognition of candidates such as 2004 ticket-mates John Kerry and John Edwards, former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner, Delaware Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., and others. And the $2 million Dodd has on hand for a race is dwarfed by New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's estimated $20 million and Kerry's estimated $17 million.

Dodd also will be scrutinized like never before -- facing questions about thousands of votes over the years, criticism of consistently high rankings by liberal groups, skepticism about whether a New Englander should head the ticket again and likely barbs about his days in the 1980s, when he was divorced and known as a ladies' man.

Dodd made it clear Monday that he has thought carefully about this undertaking. He spoke confidently and rapidly about his plans, and his tone was unusually serious. Dodd often injects humor or even gossip into his conversation. Not this time.

He explained that after weeks of talking with key advisers he decided to proceed last month during dinner with his wife, Jackie, at Jack's American Bistro and Wine Bar in Old Saybrook. Jackie Dodd, a savvy Washington player who was an executive at the Export-Import Bank and is now an international business consultant, told her husband he should lay the groundwork to run.

The Dodds have two young daughters, Grace, 4½, and 14-month-old Christina.

"They're young enough so that I can do this and still be with them," the senator said, adding that he wanted to be able to tell them that when he saw the problems the country faces today, he tried to make the future better.

Dodd turned to old friends who have advised him for years, including Rep. Rosa L. DeLauro, D-3rd District, his first Senate chief of staff in the early 1980s; Douglas Sosnik, another former chief of staff who became President Clinton's political director; former Sen. Ernest F. Hollings, D-S.C., an old friend who ran for president in 1984; former Minnesota Rep. Richard M. Nolan, and pollster Stanley Greenberg, DeLauro's husband and a longtime Dodd adviser.

DeLauro was unequivocal. "This is someone who is incredibly effective, a unifying person," she said Monday. Forget any concerns about being tagged as a New England liberal, DeLauro advised.

"He has traveled the length and breadth of the country," she said. "He has sat with families in their living rooms. He knows how to create change."

Dodd is known as someone who connects well with others but can also show a temper. And while he's a seasoned legislative negotiator, he is not considered a detail man.

Dodd ultimately had to decide whether he had the fire in the belly for a run. Sosnik said there was "no question about it … he's convinced he really wants to run."

Dodd also reached out to friends around the country, including Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., Rep. Xavier Becerra, D-Calif., and Georgia Attorney General Thurbert E. Baker.

"He'd make a great president," Baker said Monday. He said that although Dodd's New England label could make some people leery, "once people look at his record and see he has support across the board, they will come to know him and where his heart is."

Dodd said he decided to pursue the candidacy because he constantly hears from constituents that the country is going in the wrong direction, yet politicians often seem blind to their concerns and focused instead on divisive wedge issues.

"Families are under incredible pressure. They're working less and paying more," he said. "There's a sense the challenges they face are unprecedented."

On global issues, Dodd, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he can bring a world view to fighting terrorism that he often finds lacking.

"It's going to be more than Iraq,'' he said of 2008 security issues. "After 9/11, the world was at our doorstep." Not anymore. Although the United States does not have to be liked, he said, it must re-establish its alliances and regain respect.

Dodd said he hopes his message of optimism and conciliation will transcend ideology and even partisanship.

But first he will have to escape the liberal tag, which can be political poison. Americans for Democratic Action, which rates lawmakers on their liberalism, gave Dodd a perfect score last year. Dodd's compromising skills may have won him respect from GOP senators as a voice of reason, but that's barely known outside the Capitol.

Dodd said he was unworried how others define him. "I don't run away from who I am and what I stand for," he said. "Campaigns are always about the future."

Dodd also will have to overcome his New England roots. The last time a non-Southern Democrat won the White House was 46 years ago, and party officials have struggled mightily to find candidates with appeal outside the Northeast, a region that is now considered reliably Democratic.

"I'll get out and get known," Dodd said, recalling that he heard the same criticism when he was nominated for party chairman, and it quickly faded.

A third problem may be his 1980s image as one of the tabloids' favorite senators. Though he has not had to endure such publicity for at least 20 years, a candidate's entire life is fair game in a presidential campaign.

Dodd professed to be unworried. "It's about the future," he said of the race. "Remember what this is about."

Dodd's Senate duties and demeanor could present another hurdle. Making the leap from the decorum and dignity of the U.S. Senate -- where members address one another as "gentleman" and "gentle lady" and rarely speak ill of their colleagues -- to a campaign bulldog can prove difficult. Modern presidential politics requires tartness and even nastiness, the ability to find a seemingly obscure vote or quote and use it as a dagger into the heart of an opponent's campaign.

Dodd contended that he may not need a scythe, saying his genial tone is just what people want. "I realize politics is a contact sport," he said, "but people are desperate for political leadership for the purpose of bringing people together."

For now, Dodd has the confidence of someone who has finally broken through and decided to make the effort. "This is the right time for me," he said. "This is the right thing to do."

[Soldier4Christ]

Revision on welfare isn't in Senate bill

House plan limits benefits to 4 years

A state House plan to set a four-year lifetime limit on cash assistance for Michigan welfare recipients was not included in a budget measure approved Wednesday by the Senate.

The Republican-controlled Senate voted 38-0 to impose stiffer sanctions on recipients who don't fulfill working or training requirements. The plan doesn't address whether they should be kicked off welfare after four years.

That contrasts with the GOP-led House, which was expected to vote on more sweeping welfare changes Wednesday -- limiting benefits for able-bodied adults to two consecutive years and four years over their lifetimes.

Sen. Bill Hardiman, a Kentwood Republican, said the significant welfare changes proposed by House Republicans should be addressed in regular legislation.

Some Democrats have criticized the sanctions and limits as too tough.

The House and Senate will each pass their own versions of a budget plan for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1. Differences will then have to be ironed out between the two chambers and with Gov. Jennifer Granholm.

The Senate passed spending plans for K-12 schools, universities and prisons in March.

[Soldier4Christ]

Funeral bill headed to President

A bill limiting protests at military funerals is headed to President Bush's desk to be signed into law.

The Senate Thursday passed a bill barring protests within 300 feet of the entrance of a cemetery and within 150 feet an hour before or after the funeral. A House bill passed earlier this month had the boundary at 500 feet. The House passed the Senate version late last night.

[Soldier4Christ]

Bill to Ban Gambling Online Gets 4th Chance

Online poker players will have to fold their hands if a Virginia congressman gets his way.

Today, the House Judiciary Committee will mark up a bill introduced by Rep. Robert W. Goodlatte (R) that would ban much online gambling, including bets on sporting events and games of chance -- namely poker, which has enjoyed a boom in recent years.

The legislation could get an unexpected boost from the Jack Abramoff scandal. The disgraced lobbyist was key to blocking one of Goodlatte's three previous attempts to ban Internet gambling, and backlash over corruption charges could help the current effort.

The bill would update the Federal Wire Wager Act, which prohibits gambling over telephone lines but may not apply to Internet gambling because not all Web traffic travels over phone lines. It also would force banks to block transactions related to online gambling and would empower law enforcement agencies to force Internet service providers to remove or disable links to gambling sites.

"I am a big advocate of opening up the Internet to all kinds of legitimate uses," said Goodlatte, who is co-chairman of the Congressional Internet Caucus. "But we don't want the Internet to become the Wild West of the 21st century." Goodlatte said he opposes gambling because it leads to "a whole host of ills in society."

The bill effectively would prevent state lotteries from taking their games online, because technology does not exist to keep gambling within a state. Fantasy sports leagues would be exempt. Goodlatte said his bill is neutral on parimutuel horse wagering, which has an online component that is the cause of an ongoing struggle between Congress and the Justice Department.

The legislative fight over an earlier version of Goodlatte's bill was at the center of the Abramoff lobbying scandal, which led to guilty pleas by Abramoff and four former associates, including three former congressional aides. Abramoff's client, a gambling services company, opposed the bill, and the lobbyist funneled $50,000 of the client's money to the wife of a key aide to former House majority leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.). The aide, Tony Rudy, pleaded guilty to charges that he conspired with Abramoff to corrupt public officials and defraud his clients. Questions about DeLay's role contributed to DeLay's decision to leave Congress.

The current bill is backed by religious groups such as the Southern Baptist Convention, professional sports leagues such as the NFL and online-auction giant eBay Inc. On the other side are members of Congress from casino-supported Nevada, who introduced rival legislation; casinos; an organization of small banks that says its members do not have the manpower to block all gambling transactions; and a group that hopes not to get dealt out, the Poker Players Alliance.

Poker players argue that their pastime should be excluded from Goodlatte's ban because it is a game of skill, not chance. Last month, three World Series of Poker champions visited a House office building to defend their game against attempts to ban it online.

"We don't believe that simply putting the word 'Internet' in front of 'poker' should make the game suspect," said Michael Bolcerek, president of the Poker Players Alliance. "Poker is a skill game. You can influence events. The original cards are random, but you can influence your success or failure throughout the hand" by learning betting patterns of fellow players, bluffing and other techniques, he said.

Bolcerek said he prefers a weekly sit-down poker game with buddies to playing online.

Goodlatte, who said he played poker as a young man but never for money, disagreed. Poker is "absolutely a game of chance," he said.

Both sides estimate that about $12 billion a year is spent in online gaming.

Three House members from Nevada -- Jon Porter (R), Shelley Berkley (D) and Jim Gibbons (R) -- yesterday introduced legislation for an 18-month study of online gambling and whether games could be regulated and taxed, as they are in Britain. Goodlatte said such regulation could not exist here because gambling is regulated at the state, not federal, level.

The Independent Community Bankers of America, a group of about 5,000 small banks that opposes Goodlatte's bill, said previous attempts got bogged down in complications and had little chance of passing. But Stephen J. Verdier, senior vice president for congressional affairs for the small bankers, said the Abramoff scandal "has raised the political saliency" of Goodlatte's bill. "It's kind of got us a little worried, frankly," he said.

Though banks have the right to examine all transactions and block them if required by law, they are in the business of making customer payments as quickly and accurately as possible, Verdier said, "not trying to decide if you're a good person or a bad person."

[Soldier4Christ]

U.S. to repeal federal long-distance phone tax

The U.S. Treasury Department on Thursday conceded a legal dispute over the federal excise tax on long-distance telephone service and said the Internal Revenue Service will refund tax paid on the service over the past three years.

In a statement, U.S. Treasury Secretary John Snow also urged Congress to repeal the excise tax on local telephone service.

The Justice Department will no longer pursue litigation on the long-distance issue, the statement said.

The Treasury Department said taxpayers can claim a refund on their 2006 returns for the long-distance tax, which was established in 1898 as a luxury tax on wealthy Americans who owned telephones.

Snow, at a press conference on Capitol Hill with lawmakers, said the tax was "antiquated" and well-rid of.

"It's not often you get to kill a tax, particularly one that goes back so far in history," Snow said, adding that Treasury was pleased to concede this tax was no longer useful.

According to a report in The Wall Street Journal, the decision will lead to billion of dollars in refunds to U.S. consumers and businesses who have paid it, with refunds and lost revenue over the next five years adding up to about $60 billion.

Snow estimated the cost of refunding taxpayers for three years of past taxes would total about $13 billion, and said that there would be no problem in finding that amount.

"The revenue stream is strong and can easily absorb this," Snow said.

In response to questions, Snow said he could not specify how much of the refund might be made to businesses and how much to individuals. He also said Treasury could not yet estimate the size of refund an average individual could expect to get.

[Soldier4Christ]

Arnold to veto bill
nixing 'mom,' 'dad'
Homosexual-rights measure removes
'sex-specific' terms from schoolbooks

Breaking a policy of not commenting on pending bills, a spokesman for Arnold Schwarzenegger says the California governor will veto at least one of three controversial education measures related to sexual orientation.

The governor opposes a measure passed by the Senate and pending in the Assembly that would remove "sex-specific" terms such as "mom" and "dad" from textbooks and would require students to learn about the contributions homosexuals have made to society, the Sacramento Bee reported.

SB 1437 passed the Senate May 11 with a 22-15 vote.

"The governor believes that school curriculum should include all important historical figures, regardless of orientation," said Schwarzenegger's director of communications, Adam Mendelsohn, according to the Bee. "However, he does not support the Legislature micromanaging curriculum."

Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families, said he's pleased Schwarzenegger is listening to the concerns of parents.

He urges Schwarzenegger to veto two other "sexual indoctrination" bills, because "parents and grandparents are demanding it."

AB 606, would authorize the California Superintendent of Public Instruction to arbitrarily withhold state funds – about two-thirds of a school district's budget – from any district that does not adequately promote transsexuality, bisexuality or homosexuality in its school policies.

A third measure, AB 1056, would spend $250,000 in taxpayer dollars to promote transsexual, bisexual and homosexual lifestyles as part of "tolerance education."

Democratic state Sen. Sheila Kuehl, the openly lesbian author of the measure Schwarzenegger plans to veto, expressed disbelief that the governor already has made up his mind on a bill that still hadn't been vetted by one house of the Legislature, the Sacramento paper said.

"He hasn't made up his mind, I don't care what some underling might have said," insisted Kuehl, who said she had not spoken with the governor yet about the bill.

Kuehl plans to initiate a conversation when the measure gets to the Assembly floor.

"For them to take a position on it, I think is precipitous," she said. "There's nothing controversial about it. The right wing has drummed up a lot of old fears. Once people understand what it really does, the response is usually OK."

Seth Kilbourn, political director for the homosexual-rights group Equality California, called the governor's indication of opposition "disappointing."

Kilbourn doesn't see any political benefit in the governor rejecting the bill, with June being "Gay Pride Month."

"This would not be the best time for him to be doing that if he wanted to appear more friendly," Kilbourn told the Sacramento paper. "He's passed more pieces of legislation benefiting the GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered) community – except for gay marriage – than any other governor."

[Soldier4Christ]

States move to validate use of deadly force

A campaign by gun rights advocates to make it easier to use deadly force in self-defense is rapidly winning support across the country, as state after state makes it legal for people who feel their lives are in danger to shoot down an attacker -- whether in a car-jacking or just on the street.

The law has spurred debate about whether it protects against lawlessness or spurs more crime. Supporters say it's an unambiguous answer to random violence, while critics -- including police chiefs and prosecutors -- warn that criminals are more likely to benefit than innocent victims.

Ten states so far this year have passed a version of the law, after Florida was the first last year. It's already being considered in Arizona in the case of a deadly shooting on a hiking trail.

Supporters have dubbed the new measures "stand your ground" laws, while critics offered nicknames like the "shoot first," "shoot the Avon lady" or "right to commit murder" laws.

At its core, they broaden self-defense by removing the requirement in most states that a person who is attacked has a "duty to retreat" before turning to deadly force. Many of the laws specify that people can use deadly force if they believe they are in danger in any place they have a legal right to be -- a parking lot, a street, a bar, a church. They also give immunity from criminal charges and civil liability.

The campaign is simply about self-defense, said Oklahoma state Rep. Kevin Calvey, a Republican and author of the law in his state. "Law-abiding citizens aren't going to take it anymore," he said.

"It's going to give the crooks second thoughts about carjackings and things like that. They're going to get a face full of lead," Calvey said. He introduced the bill at the request of the local National Rifle Association, and it passed with overwhelmingly support: The House agreed 83-4, the Senate 39-5.

Democratic Gov. Brad Henry signed it and said: "This act will allow law-abiding Oklahomans to protect themselves, their loved ones and their property."

Besides Oklahoma, the nine other states to sign on are Arizona, Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi and South Dakota, according to the NRA.

Critics say the NRA is overstating its success. Only six of those states expanded self-defense into public places, said Zach Ragbourn, a spokesman at the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. There already is a presumption in law that a person does not have to retreat in their home or car, he said.

And there have been a few high-profile defeats, too.

In New Hampshire, the measure passed the legislature only narrowly and then was vetoed by Democratic Gov. John Lynch, who was joined by police and prosecutors.

Police Chief Nathaniel H. Sawyer Jr. of New Hampton, N.H., said the legislation addressed a problem that does not exist. In 26 years in law enforcement, he has never seen anyone wrongfully charged with a crime for self-defense, he said.

"I think it increases the chance for violence," said Sawyer, also the president of the New Hampshire Association of Police Chiefs. "It increases the chance of innocent people being around the violence and becoming involved in it or hurt."

The bill would have allowed a person "to use deadly force in response to non-deadly force, even in public places such as shopping malls, public streets, restaurants and churches," Lynch said when he vetoed the legislation. Existing law already gives citizens the right to protect themselves, he said.

The NRA argues that victims wind up with an unfair burden if the law, as it does in New Hampshire, requires a duty to retreat, if possible. "That does crime victims little good when they have to make a split-second decision to protect their life from violent attack by a criminal," said Wayne LaPierre, the NRA's executive director.

"The only people that have anything to fear from this type of law is someone who plans on robbing, shooting or raping someone," LaPierre said.

That argument sounds good and it's winning supporters, said Florida state Rep. Dan Gelber, a critic of the law when it passed in his state last year and a former federal prosecutor. But he does not see any instances now or in the past of a victim being prosecuted for failing to retreat.

He sees the Florida law, and the national campaign, as an effort by the NRA to build support and keep its members riled up.

"The NRA is a victim of its own successes. No political party in Florida today is going to advance any serious gun-control agenda," said Gelber, a Democrat. "What's left is these little things which have no impact on every day life, but inspire and activate the base."

And, he argued, it gives defense attorneys a potential avenue to seek acquittal for crimes. In effect, criminals will benefit much more often than any innocent victim. "It's going to give the guy who's really looking for a fight, or does something totally irresponsible or venal, a defense he would not otherwise have."

Last week in Arizona, the state appellate court delayed the start of jury deliberations in the trial of a retired school teacher charged with second-degree murder for shooting a man on a hiking trail in May 2004. The court is deciding whether the new law applies to his claim of self-defense.