C-SPAN Washington Journal Watch

The guest talks about the Patriot Act and its reauthorization by Congress. A House-Senate conference committee held their first meeting this week to reconcile differences between their two bills to reauthorize provisions in the 2001 antiterrorism law. If completed, the House may vote on the final version next week. The House version would make permanent 14 of the 16 expiring provisions with the other two, allowing roving wiretaps and allowing the FBI to seize business records, to be extended by 10 years to 2015. The Senate version would have those two provisions expire in four years in 2009. The American Civil Liberties Union opposes making the Patriot Act permanent and opposes its surveillance and search provisions. House bill (HR 3199) Senate bill: (S. 1389)

The ACLU noted that calls for reforms have come from a politically diverse chorus, including the American Conservative Union, Americans for Tax Reform and Gun Owners of America. Leading business organizations have also spoken out in favor of the Senate reforms to the secret record search powers expanded by the Patriot Act. Those groups include the Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Association of Realtors, the Association of Corporate Counsel, the Financial Services Roundtable and Business Civil Liberties, Inc

Armed with these tools, U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agents have pursued and captured operatives in the war on terrorism from Florida to New York, from Virginia to Oregon and points in between. Since Sept. 11, 2001, 368 individuals have been charged and 194 have been convicted.

Despite the documented successes in keeping Americans safe from terrorism, the Patriot Act rarely receives its due, and indeed is often portrayed in an outright false light.

It’s all good and fine to be concerned about civil liberties – especially in the context of emergency situations, which could be used as a pretext by those with evil on their minds to unnecessarily strip us of our freedoms. However, it is during emergency management in particular that sometimes, you just have to trust that legislators have written laws that, if judged constitutional by State and Federal Supreme Courts and enforced fairly, will contribute to the general welfare. We saw this with the Patriot Act, where not merely national security but our nation’s very existence is at stake in the face of the global war on terrorism. As regards natural disasters and possible deadly epidemics, similar considerations should apply.

The guest talks about the cause of the riots in France and Germany. He believes “second generation” immigrants are the source of the riots because they have the most potential to be influenced by jihadists. On July 2005 in an article in Foreign Affairs titled “Europe’s Angry Muslims,” he predicted riots might happen.

Indeed, the fissure between liberalism and multiculturalism is opening just as the continent undergoes its most momentous population shift since Asian tribes pushed westward in the first Christian millennium. Immigration obviously hits a national security nerve, but it also raises economic and demographic questions: how to cope with a demonstrably aging population; how to maintain social cohesion as Christianity declines and both secularism and Islam climb; whether the EU should exercise sovereignty over borders and citizenship; and what the accession of Turkey, with its 70 million Muslims, would mean for the EU. Moreover, European mujahideen do not threaten only the Old World; they also pose an immediate danger to the United States.

The guest talks about U.S. policy toward Iraq and about life while serving in Iraq from a reservist soldier’s point of view. His “real” job is as a partner in a law firm.

Laurel lawyer John E. Smathers, a captain in the Army Reserve, returned from a year in Iraq with a broken arm, a wrecked knee and a chest full of medals.

During his tour, Smathers helped thwart a bank robbery and assisted in recovering stolen Iraqi artwork. He survived an ambush and a high-speed auto crash.

But when he got back in March 2004, he was determined to complete a final mission: to rescue Scout, a dog he and other soldiers had adopted, from the increasingly bloody streets of Baghdad and bring him to his Howard County home. Scout was resolute, loyal. So was Smathers.

Former Marine Staff Sgt. Jimmy Massey was the liberal media's dream come true: An anti-war Iraq veteran who came forward to publicly lambaste the Bush administration and accuse American troops of murdering innocent civilians.

Jimmy Massey was Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan and John Kerry all wrapped up into one tidy, soundbite-friendly package -- a poster boy for peace topped off by a military uniform and tattoos to boot. But like a lot of the agitators who pose as well-meaning, good-faith peace activists, Jimmy Massey was something else:

A complete fraud.

A number of flippant liberals are e-mailing me now with calls for all Filipinos to be interned. Grow up. The safety of the president and the country was put at risk, and it may have been due in part to the blinders of political correctness and complacency. If it means now that the White House will be applying extra scrutiny to naturalized Americans of Filipino descent working at the top levels of government and in the military, well, yes, I support that. It's obviously overdue. And, as I argued in my last book, it's just one small step towards the kind of national security profiling we should have introduced aggressively after 9/11. But didn't.

Malkin is not a historian, and she states that she relied almost exclusively on research conducted or collected by others. Her book, which purports to defend the wartime treatment of Japanese Americans, did not go through peer review before publication. This work presents a version of history that is contradicted by several decades of scholarly research, including works by the official historian of the United States Army and an official U.S. government commission. In fact, the author's presentation of events is so distorted and historically inaccurate that, when challenged by reputable historians, she has herself conceded that her main thesis in incorrect.

And suddenly, I was the one wearing a grin. Here's why. Baby Steps (a local parent-training program largely of my own design and funding) has been stressing how important it is for parents to talk to their young children -- not "baby talk" and not "school talk" either, just chatter. It is our belief, based on some solid evidence, that parent-child chatter -- begun even before children learn to talk -- makes children more verbal, improves their reading readiness, stretches their vocabulary and generally makes them smarter.

It is arguable that managers don't know about the outside activities of most of their employees. Still, says Hewlett, that lack of knowledge redounds to the special disadvantage of minorities -- for two reasons.

"First, minority professionals tend to be more engaged with community and with outside roles and responsibilities than are white professionals," she said in an interview from her New York office.

"Second, though, what they are engaged with is different. White involvement might be with formal civic organizations -- United Way, symphony boards, the standard community roles." Blacks, she said, tend to be involved in church leadership, in leadership of fraternal organizations and in efforts to "give back" to the often-needy communities they come from.

Professor Cole has received numerous awards for his civil rights and civil liberties work, including from the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of the Freedom of Expression, the American Bar Association’s Individual Rights and Responsibilities Section, the National Lawyers Guild, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, the Political Asylum and Immigrants’ Rights Project, the American Muslim Council, and Trial Lawyers for Public Justice.

The proposition that judicial processes -- the very essence of the rule of law -- are to be dismissed as a strategy of the weak, akin to terrorism, suggests the continuing strength of Yoo's influence. When the rule of law is seen simply as a device used by terrorists, something has gone perilously wrong. Michael Ignatieff has written that "it is the very nature of a democracy that it not only does, but should, fight with one hand tied behind its back. It is also in the nature of democracy that it prevails against its enemies precisely because it does." Yoo persuaded the Bush administration to untie its hand and abandon the constraints of the rule of law. Perhaps that is why we are not prevailing.

Even if inhuman treatment might induce a suspect to talk in a specific case, such methods are difficult to control and in the long run ill-advised, as the migration of such abuses from Guantánamo to wider use in Iraq demonstrates. These tactics ultimately undermine our security, as they impair our legitimacy and create ideal recruiting tools for the enemy. It is simply immoral to claim that we can inflict on other countries' nationals cruel and inhuman treatment that would not be tolerated if it were imposed on our own citizens.

If we are to prevail in the war on terror, we must do so by distinguishing ourselves from our enemy. Terrorism is a moral evil because to achieve its ends it brutally disregards the value of human life. Torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment are evil for the same reason. As John McCain said, this is not about who they are, "this is about who we are."

To protect the United States against another 9/11-style attack, it makes little sense to deprive ourselves of important, and legal, means to detect and prevent terrorist attacks. Physical and mental abuse is clearly illegal. But should we also take off the table interrogation methods that fall short of torture - such as isolation, physical labor, or plea bargains - but go beyond mere questioning?

It is clear beyond any reasonable doubt, as we have shown in our coverage over the past few years, that Cheney, Addington, and the others, such as the Justice Department's John Yoo, knew that what they were advocating constituted war crimes under U.S. and international law.

Judge Alito's Federalist Society membership is seen as "an important signal to conservatives in the legal community," said John Yoo, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley, who worked in the U.S. Justice Department from 2001 through 2003. "It shows an interest in thinking deeply about the role of the courts in society and the proper interpretation of the Constitution based on its text and history," said Mr. Yoo, himself a member of the Federalist Society since his college days.

These two memos sanction such extreme measures that, even if the agency wanted to discipline or prosecute agents who stray beyond its own comfort level, the legal tools to do so may no longer exist. Like the torture memo, these documents are believed to have been signed by Jay Bybee, the former head of the Office of Legal Counsel, but written by a Justice Department lawyer, John Yoo, who is now a professor of law at Berkeley.

With the increase of demand and reduction of supply, Radanovich believes that ANWR is part of the solution for meeting the US energy needs.

“Nothing that we can do right now is going to boost our energy supply right now. We got to begin thinking about the future.”

“Our population is growing. We're facing much more and more scarcer reserves,” he says. “I think real solutions is increasing our own production capacity in the United States.”

Radanovich addresses those who do not want to drill in ANWR, saying, “those that object to ANWR will in 9 times out of 10 will object to any proposal to use any American resource for energy production.”

Radanovich states that 85 percent of energy use is petroleum based. He continues by saying that the American people currently need an energy source that is “reliable and affordable.”

Some Congressmen are calling for a windfall tax imposed on oil companies receiving record profits. Radanovich shows some reluctance to this proposal, saying there is no need for a “knee jerk reaction” to the incidents of Katrina and Rita. He also suggests that a windfall tax might harm oil companies' ability to research alternative fuels and efficiency.

“We are going to be dependent on oil reserves for at least the next 50 years, until we make that jump to alternative energy sources.”

The plan supported by Radanovich also addresses off-shore drilling which may provide some relief for electricity demands in addition to another source of income.

“In the reconciliation package, part of that is a plan that allows ..states the right whether or not to go to off-shore oil reserves,” Radanovich explains. “What I think is really important about this is that it gives the state the right, but also it sets up the state to receive some revenue benefits, royalty benefits from the development from those resources.”

According to Radanovich, this plan gives the state the right to build energy harvesting platforms 125 miles away from the shore. He says that seven miles off the coast will be outside the sight line of the shore. He adds that part of the reserves sought are natural gas reserves.

Radanovich says that the US is dependent on natural gas for energy production of electricity. He describes the process as a “very efficient and clean” way to obtain energy.

He believes that by not providing the state rights to off-shore drilling, “we're setting our self up for another energy crisis if we don't deal with the supply of natural gas.”

During his interview, Radanovich also shares his views on alternative sources of energy including solar and wind.

According to the Republican California Representative, his supported bill will “provide incentives for the expansion for the use of solar and wind to generate electricity.”

However, Radanovich is not very optimistic on the potential of these alternative energy sources. “Wind and solar are important, but (they) are not going to make our energy needs,” he says.

Radanovich claims in order to achieve the amount of energy received from ANWR, about four hundred and forty-five thousand acres of land are needed to be built, with each receiving 365 days of sun.

He also states that three million and seven hundred thousand acres of wind farms are required to equal the amount of energy produced by ANWR.

“You decide what is better environmentally,” Radanovich instructs.

He concludes with the proposal to use only wind and solar by saying to “rely solely on that for our energy needs is foolish.”

“I think that is kind of short sighted,” Radanovich adds, “I don't think that it serves our security interest very well. I don't think it serves our economy very well.”

“Technology is really the answer that gets us into more alternate fuels and new non-petroleum energy supplies. The more research we put into that, the closer it becomes on the horizon. I think we should not neglect the research that's necessary to get us there, but those are part of the incentives in the energy bill was to get some of these going. In the meantime, Americans in the free market want the kind of cars they buy right now.”

In addition to meeting some of the energy needs, Radanovich suggests that the plan he supports will reduce budget costs.

“Republicans heard loud and clear that Congress is spending too much money,” he says, later adding that his party “got away from the message that less government is better.”

During the interview, he states that the supported plan will save 3.7 billion dollars of taxpayer money.

“This package, aside from the energy savings that we get from beginning to use our own resources, is a long time coming from Congress and I welcome it.”

“I'm proud of the fact that a reform bill like this is coming up, with cost savings and beginning to look at reducing the deficit, is finally coming to the house floor."

The vote to include the proposed provisions including oil drilling in Alaska will probably reach the floor of the House later this week.

“ANWR exists in the Senate version, and it is proposed in the House on Thursday,” Radanovich says. There will be a “conference on both measures and then re-vote when that does happens.”

Radanovich recognizes that it is an uphill battle to include these provisions. “They got a tough job,” he says. “This is the type of tug and pull the leadership has to overcome to get a bill that passes.”

During the interview, Radanovich is asked if ANWR supporters will resort to other means in pushing this project through.

“There are those of us that are convinced that ANWR makes sense, we won't sneak anything through, everything done in Congress is subject to a vote,” he responds.

When asked if he will vote against the bill if the ANWR provision is removed, Radanovich says, “I'm thinking about it, but I haven't made my mind yet.”

Opposition among some Republicans to opening the refuge to oil exploration threatens to imperil passage of the comprehensive budget measure, which seeks to reduce government spending by $53.9 billion over five years. The proposal, intended to help reduce the federal deficit, includes cuts to benefit programs such as Medicaid and food stamps and also revenue-raising measures. Selling leases to oil companies to drill in the refuge would bring in about $2.5 billion.

Pombo’s bill, the Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act of 2005, promises to fix the current law by focusing on species recovery, providing incentives, increasing openness and accountability, strengthening scientific standards, creating bigger roles for state and local governments, protecting private property owners and eliminating dysfunctional critical habitat designations.

Besides Cardoza, Walden and Radanovich, other cosponsors of the new legislation include Reps. Marion Berry and Mike Ross of Arkansas, Joe Baca and Jim Costa of California, Henry Brown of South Carolina and Bennie Thompson of Mississippi.

Edwards, 51, presides over an agency whose annual spending - about $12 billion - consumes one-quarter of the state budget while providing health care coverage to 2 million poor Ohioans.

She and other state Medicaid directors have struggled to absorb program cuts even as Medicaid rolls soar because of reduced health care coverage by employers, a shifting of poor elderly and disabled citizens from Medicare to Medicaid, and the willingness of many affluent Americans to transfer their assets to relatives to obtain Medicaid coverage.

Ohio will pay less than it thought, but still end up losing money on the new Medicare prescription drug benefit for the aged poor, a state welfare official said Wednesday.

The new Medicare plan reverses the traditional system of states buying medications for low-income residents and getting rebates from the federal government. Now the federal government provides the drugs but charges the states.
Ohio will pay about $35 million more than it would have buying drugs itself in the 12 months starting in July 2006, the first full state budget year under the new plan, said Barbara Edwards, state Medicaid director. In March, Edwards had estimated the loss at $55 million.

During the interview, he discloses that he did not support the current President during his election bid in 2000. “I did not think he was qualified to be President to be perfectly, perfectly honest,” Korb says. “Based upon seeing the statements he made during the campaign, seeing the way he handled a lot of issues, I was really worried about his ability to handle foreign policy.” He continues, “I didn't think he had the breadth and experience to deal with the challenges in office, and that concerned me.”

One of the decisions that President Bush made after his win in 2000 was to install the former head of the Rand Corporation, Donald Rumsfeld, into the position of Secretary of Defense.

During the interview Korb distinguishes the Secretary of State under Reagan, Caspar Willard Weinberger, to Rumsfeld. He says that during the first eight months Rumsfeld was in the White House, he treated the transition like a “hostile takeover.” During this time, Korb describes Rumsfeld's actions as bringing in outside groups and disrupting what he calls at the time was the “finest military in the world.”

Compared to Rumsfeld, he characterizes Weinberger as a Secretary who paid much more attention to the the advice of the military. Korb says that Weinberger had the attitude by asking the military, 'How can I help you do your job?', while Rumsfeld directed by saying, 'I'm going to tell you how to do your job.'

Korb believes that the actions of President Bush and his appointed staff has led the United States to the current situation with Iraq.

“I did not think we needed to go to war. I thought Saddam was contained. I was impressed by the arguments of people like General Zinni, who was the head of the Central Command up until 2000, that Saddam was contained. I was also concerned by going to Iraq when we did we took forces out of Afghanistan before having finished the job, and I thought that should have been priority number one.”

Speaking about the intelligence that led to the war Korb says, “the message came down from the top where they wanted to go." When presented with an opportunity to bring up information contradicting senior officials, he says, “people did not want to bring bad news.”

“I know from in my service and in the Pentagon, when people down below get an inkling which direction you want to go, it takes a very courageous person to say 'wait a second you're going in the wrong direction,'” he says. “You also had what you call group think.”

Korb also speaks about how dissenting opinion is treated, giving the example of General Shinseki. During the interview, Korb describes Shinseki, who was at the time the Army's Chief of Staff, as an expert of war who lost his foot in Vietnam.

Shinseki conflicted with the Department of Defense arguing that the number of troop levels should be higher when Iraq was first invaded. Korb says that the Deputy Defense Secretary at the time, Paul Wolfowitz, a civilian with no past military experience, dismissed Shinseki's advice. Korb states that Wolfowitz suggested that Shinseki 'does not know what he is talking about,' in respect to running a war.

Shinseki's views is reflected by Korb's belief in the need of a high number of troops when the US first went into Iraq. He believed that around three hundred to four hundred thousand were needed to prevent the “insurgency to take on a life of it's own.” Having more troops brought in “would have been able to begin rebuilding the country, prevent criminals in the beginning,” Korb explains.

Korb states when it comes to the military, “you got to listen to the professionals. You got to listen to people who know what war is like.”

The planning and debate of how and if the United States should go in to Iraq is in the past, and the United States finds itself still in the country after the invasion on March 20, 2003.

“There has been progress in training some of the Iraqi forces, but the problem is not what the media is presenting, the problem is what the administration has been telling us about how much progress we were making and every time we had a significant milestone whether it was the capture of Saddam Hussein, or the election, that things were going to get better and even General Kasey who was general Patreus' boss when he was over there said 'at best we're holding our own'.”

With 150,000 American troops in Iraq and another 20,000 troops in Afghanistan, Korb says, “you're going to break the all volunteer army, because you're going to begin to be sending people to go back for a third or fourth time and we know that really has an impact on retention.”

“Our army has already has some recruiting problems. If you look at the active army, the guard and reserve, they have missed their totals this year by close to 25,000 people.”

During the interview, Korb discusses the military's attempt to remedy the lack of recruits.

He comments about the drop in standards in accepting enlistees saying “that they have to be careful. We went through that in the late 70's, and when I came into government in the early 80's, in order to meet the quotas we dropped the standards and what happens is you begin to have discipline problems. People don't make it through their initial term of enlistment. You bring in recruits that shouldn't be there. This discourages, in the end, lose some commissioned officers and they begin to leave.”

“So even with dropping the standards, really increasing the bonuses and the age limit, we still miss our recruiting target. So i think something is going to have to be done.”

Another reason for the low recruit level is the public opinion with some polls showing the majority of people do not support our involvement in Iraq and want us to begin withdrawing. “In our Democracy, you can not fight a prolonged war without popular support,” Korb says.

Korb describes our current situation in Iraq as conflict which falls in Al-qaeda's plan to have our military “drawn in and bleed us slowly.” He comments on the President's statements saying that Iraq is the front on the War on Terror is true only because “he went in there.”

“Our presence is part of the problem. It is fueling some of the insurgency. It's drawing in some foreign fighters.”

Another aspect that enrages and fuels the insurgency is our treatment of detainees, Korb suggests.

Korb suggests that this issue is a main topic saying, “particularly in the Muslim world, they bring up Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo rather than the horrible event of 9/11.”

“I think very definitely there should be limits on what interrogators can do”

"When you engage the enemy, one of the things we have going for us is who we are, and what we stand for.”

“Once we reduce ourselves to the level of some of our adversaries, in many ways we've lost the battle."

“When you're in this service i mean the first thing you learn is the provisions of the Geneva Conventions and what your rights are if you were captured as a prisoner what you should expect. Now we don't always have that with some of our adversaries, but you know what you expect and you know what you should do with people you capture.”

“After September 11, you have some memos coming out of the White House and the Secretary of Defense Office that seems to say this is a different kind of war the normal limits of Geneva Conventions did not apply.”

Korb recalls the Vietnam War and the abuses done to American troops and the policy not to respond in kind. He comments on the position taken by the Secretary of Defense at that time, Melvin Laird, saying that torture “will be self defeating for us in the long term.”

Korb disputes the reasoning of obtaining crucial information immediately by saying, “if you stop back and say is this going to help or hurt us.” He continues, “by in large, when you torture people they are going to tell you what everything they think you want to hear so you're not going to get good information and in the process you ruin your reputation.”

Korb calls for the administration to find the policy makers of the treatment of detainees and hold them accountable.

He calls for an investigation to find if the soldiers were “following orders” or doing “what the higher ups wanted.” Korb says, “all we've had is low ranking people and that really shouldn't be. Part of the reason we have problems around the world is people are saying 'Why aren't some of the higher ups being punished?' And I think until we do that we are going to lose this battle of ideas that we are trying to win in the Muslim world.”

John Mccain, who himself was a prisoner that was especially abused during the Vietnam War after his capture due to his father being an admiral, is also calling for legislative actions against prisoner abuse. The administration, however, is not very enthusiastic with his plan. “Why the President and Vice president just don't get on with this, I think, is beyond me,” Korb says.

This issue is part of the problems needed to be resolved in order to end the conflict in Iraq. Korb does not want the US to leave Iraq with Al-qaeda having a foothold in the region. “No one wants an Iraq that becomes a haven for terrorists,” he says.

The upcoming election brings some hope to Korb. “Basically what you tell the Iraqis after the election is, 'okay, you have a permanent government that will be there for four years and say that in the end of two years we will be out.'” He says that this will send a signal to some of the insurgents are “fighting because we're there.”

He believes that the upcoming troop rotation will bring the military presence down to 60 thousand by the end of next year. “We need to give the Iraqis the incentive basically to get their act together,” he says. Korb states that by the end of 2007, the US will only have residual forces in Kuwait, just in case of future conflicts.

According to Korb, ending the War in Iraq will relieve our military strain, get back to our original goal in Afghanistan, and free up troops to secure the homeland.

The author, Korb, a former assistant secretary of defense, pooh-poohs the notion that the move to Eastern Europe has anything to do with costs since up-grading crumbling Soviet-era bases and transportation networks would easily outweigh cheaper living costs. Besides, these nouveau capitalists are so poor they can’t pay for their own protection like the elitist socialist Huns. So Korb believes the obsession with the New Europe can only be a punishment for Old Europe not getting with the imperial program in Iraq. Yet another case of the Bushies cutting off their own nose to spite their face, says he.

Many of the weapons involved, like the F/A-22 fighter jet and the Virginia Class submarine, were designed to fight the defunct Soviet Union. All of this is according to Lawrence Korb, whose credentials are endless -- senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, senior adviser to the Center for Defense Information, former vice president of Raytheon, etc. The $26 billion does not include the old Star Wars program, now called missile defense, which could be cut back to basic research for a savings of $7 billion. I'm trying to give you some sense of scale here. According to Korb's research, we could take $60 billion out of the defense budget, 15 percent of the total, without remotely affecting military readiness.

Due to current fiscal considerations, Congress is faced with having to increase the federal deficit through debt financing in order to provide recovery assistance to the residents and businesses of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama from the effects of Hurricane Katrina. We find this fiscal situation troublesome and urge your administration to follow the examples of previous administrations facing fiscal difficulties in time of emergencies and exercise spending restraint through offsetting, spending reductions in non-defense, non-homeland security budget items.

Republican leaders are still hoping to swing a few Democratic votes.

Chief Deputy Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) will hold a press conference with Reps. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.), Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) and Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) today to pressure centrist Democrats, particularly Blue Dogs who have supported cuts before.

many conservatives continue to push for deeper cuts in government spending. The Republican Study Committee, a group of more than 100 House conservatives, has been pressuring party leaders to eliminate 100 federal programs and make across-the-board cuts in the federal budget.

"We've got programs out there that do nothing but waste money," said Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., a member of the committee. "Any time we even try to restrain spending, look at the rhetoric we hear."

Centrist Republicans in particular have problems with the measure's cuts, especially in light of the fact that Republican leaders still insist on extending tax cuts this year -- a political point Democrats are hammering home.
Democrats say the savings measure would cruelly cut programs for the poor, while doing nothing to reduce the deficit, because "savings" would be eaten up by the hefty tax-cut package Republicans want to approve later this year. "Could this Congress possibly be more out of step?" asked Rep. Rosa DeLauro, Connecticut Democrat.
Republicans say that tax cuts have helped the economy and that this year's effort will simply prevent a harmful tax increase. They say the savings bill won't cripple any programs and will simply trim some fat.
But some Republican members said the savings bill is hardly ready for floor action. One member, on the condition of anonymity, said he'd be "shocked" if it came to the House floor next week.

The 2004 drug case called John Doe v. Groody involved the search of a suspected methamphetamine dealer's house in Pennsylvania.

The warrant named only the man, who goes by the name John Doe in the appeals decision. But police also searched his wife, Jane Doe, and 10-year-old daughter, Mary Doe.

A female traffic officer escorted the females to a second-floor bathroom, where they were ordered to lift their shirts, drop their pants and turn around. No contraband was found.

In supporting the search, Alito wrote that police acted in a common sense and realistic manner in searching everyone in the house. Alito argued that the police deserved protection from a lawsuit stemming from the search.

"I share the majority's visceral dislike of the intrusive search of John Doe's young daughter, but it is a sad fact that drug dealers sometimes use children to carry out their business and to avoid prosecution," Alito wrote. "I know of no legal principle that bars an officer from searching a child (in a proper manner) if a warrant has been issued and the warrant is not illegal on its face."

But the 2-1 decision in the case agreed with the District Court to allow the lawsuit against four officers involved. Judge Michael Chertoff, who has since become secretary of homeland security, wrote the opinion that said the intrusive search went significantly beyond what the magistrate granted.

For example, police are allowed to frisk suspects for weapons - for safety. But the females were not considered violent threats.

Chertoff wrote that the warrant wasn't ambiguous or contradictory. If dealers routinely hide drugs with relatives, the affidavit from police seeking the warrant didn't describe that. Chertoff wrote that he searched in vain for any justification to search the females.

"None appears," Chertoff wrote. "A search warrant for a premises does not constitute a license to search everyone inside. The record does not disclose any independent basis to suspect Jane Doe - let alone 10-year-old Mary Doe - of drug activity."

Alito doesn’t have much use for the Bill of Rights’ Fourth Amendment, guaranteeing freedom from unwarranted searches and seizures and fair trials. For example, he argued that police had a right to strip-search a 10-year-old girl (and her mother) while carrying out a search warrant that only authorized the search of a man and his home (Doe v. Groody, 2004). Did I hear someone say “Gestapo tactics”?

Every indication is that the officers in this case met the highest professional standards. What did they get for their pains? They got sued. Judge Alito's opinion in Groody is well-reasoned and highly persuasive. There is no reason why leftists should be allowed to use it to cast doubt on Alito's qualifications. On the contrary, it is a good illustration of why we need jurists like Judge Alito on the Supreme Court.

Congress appears poised to reauthorize the 1965 Voting Rights Act, in some form or another, for an additional 25 years, said the chairman of a House subcommittee holding hearings on the legislation's renewal.

The Voting Rights Act has had a tremendous impact in this country on ensuring that every American has not only the right but the opportunity and the ability to vote,"Chabot said. "It's not perfect. But it's much improved over where we were back in the '60s. I think most people realize that.

Chabot said Parks' death was an important reminder of why the law was enacted. Speakers at her funeral pointed out that she had twice been denied the right to vote in Alabama because she failed to pass literacy tests that were required of black voters at the time. White voters didn't have to take the tests.

But a line is crossed when a president urges a group — and particularly a racial or ethnic or religious group — to support him because of their interests as members of that group. And I also think there are differences in degree that matter. Some amount of groveling and pandering has to be accepted, but at some point it is no longer just politics, but identity politics. Taken as a whole, we expect our politicians to appeal to us as Americans, not as members of this or that group. Finally, racial appeals are inherently dangerous and potentially divisive in a way that appealing to farmers as farmers is not. Consider: If it is permissible to appeal to blacks as blacks, then why not whites as whites; and if to Jews and Jews, then why not to Christians as Christians?