Houston Democrats

Look who’s a flip-flopper now!

The following came from the Daily Kos:

From 1989:

H.R. 3660, the Government Ethics Reform Act, will strengthen and clarify existing House rules. Issues such as the ban on congressional honoraria, limits on gifts and travel, increased financial disclosure, restrictions on outside income, and conflict of interest rules will all be tightened to reflect the growing and changing role of Government service...

I am especially pleased to support this comprehensive overhaul of House ethics rules and conflict of interest laws because it is an important first step in enhancing the ethical standards throughout Government and adjusting compensation for individuals whose skills are essential to the quality of service Government provides to the American people. It is my hope that honor will be restored to elected offices so that we can continue to work for the values that we have fought for in the past with quality representation in the future.

From 1992:

Now, the House needs new management, and that is Republican management. In my opinion, it will not do any good to get rid of the present Speaker or the present leadership, because what will happen is more will come in and it is the arrogance of power that we are talking about here. What is going on here is arrogance of power. We need a change in management...

The Democrats could offer us another candidate, but it just will not change the system. Only when the public and Republican pressure becomes so great does the Democrat leadership act. We need new leadership which will act because it is right, not because they have been caught in coverups and scandals.

And 1994:

Mr. Speaker, I just am saddened by these kinds of issues. I believe very deeply in this institution, and I would hope that others do, too, and understand that, No. 1, the Justice Department is another branch of our Government, that we are empowered and mandated to clean our own house. Yet some in this body do not seem to understand that and would rather see mud thrown at this institution than to get to the bottom of problems in this institution.

It's hard to believe that DeLay ever said any of those things. It makes you wonder if he really actually meant any of them.

Now jumping to the present:

The Washington Times had an interview with Tom DeLay. Here are some excerpts on various issues:

The Government

On the redesigning government part, it's been my own personal project to redesign government. We have a whole effort that started two years ago called the 21st Century Careers Initiative, which is an effort to use regulatory reform as redesigning government, and we will even get more aggressive in this part of our agenda this year and next.

Secondly, you can't redesign government till you redesign this place. I started an effort to redesign the Appropriations Committee to make it harder to spend - to make it easier to spend on our priorities and harder to spend on the Democrats' priorities. We accomplished that, and the Senate followed. We are taking an aggressive approach on the budget process. And we're going to have a budget process bill. And I've got all my chairmen who are interested in this working on that bill, along with other members. [Rep.] David Dreier [California Republican] has been charged with looking at the entire jurisdictions and committees of the House.

Remember, when we came in, we cut 30 percent of the committees budgets, we changed some jurisdiction - not a whole lot, but it was that kind of effort. And we're continuing in that effort.

Right, who needs the Democrats’ priorities? I mean we can all get along just fine without health care, an education, a clean environment, international relations, job programs, foreign aid, homeland security, veterans’ benefits, up-armored Humvees, etc.

Balanced Budgets

The idea is to hold the line on spending and let the economy catch up. Balanced budgets can be done [House Minority Leader] Nancy Pelosi's way. We could do that tomorrow. We could raise enough taxes to balance the budget. That's what they did in 1993. That's not where we're going.

Certainly not! This administration has run up the largest trade deficits and budget deficits ever. Still DeLay prides himself on his record of tax relief, passing a tax cut at least once a year (sometimes twice) since Republicans have been in the majority. There has not been a raise in taxes in 10 years.

DeLay also says that "we're holding down spending." Obviously that depends on what kind of spending you are talking about. It's true non-descretionary spending may have gone down, but that is more than offset by any costs incurred from operations in Iraq. Kerry sure was a lot closer to the mark on how much it would cost us, but his amount still underestimated the actual cost.

Apparently, DeLay would like to bankrupt the country. In the business world, if the cost of production goes up, the cost of the product or service rises as well. So everyone for a bankrupt nation say aye!

Eliminating Government Programs

Tom DeLay was asked what programs he would like the government to stop running. Here's his astonishing response:

Mr. DeLay: That's certainly been the case. And the Department of Education, the Department of Commerce - you're absolutely right.

Well there goes the Department of Education and the Department of Commerce. That’s great. No more math or anti-God, anti-conservative science. Of course without any oversight of businesses we will all be better off and have more individual rights. Just look to China for a preview. There are riots over a lack or non-existence of health care, chemical pits in their towns, birth defects, corruption, fraud, etc... Of course American businesses are exemplars of good business and do not need that kind of oversight.

Limiting Government

Mr. Hurt: Does that mean that shrinking or limiting government is not the priority, but that the priority is to grow into the government we have?

Mr. DeLay: No, no, no. Shrinking government and limiting government are actually two different things. Limiting the government in your life, regulatory, social issues and all that and shrinking the size of government or reprioritizing - or as I like to say it, 'redesigning' - government to reflect our values are very important.

Uh, are we talking about the same government? Isn’t this the one that wants to amend the Constitution to tell us what a proper and improper relationship with another person is? The one that takes away the right of women to decide that fate of their bodies? That mandates when you can die?

Health Care

Mr. DeLay: Let me finish. Let me finish. We've got value - our values - instituted in there. And the most important thing that will change health care in this country is health savings accounts. That was the biggest victory in the Medicare system. So if Medicare gets out of whack and is not going like we think it will go, and the cost curve will be bent because of what we've instituted, then we've got those institutions and we can dial them in and out and make them happen. If you go with the philosophy of the Democrats - a government-run health care program for the senior citizens - you can't do that. You have limited choices. You can raise taxes, raise premiums, or you can cut benefits, do those types of Democrat adjustments.

Now we have opportunities to bring in more competition. If it isn't working, we can raise co-payments, we can put the decisions for health care for senior citizens in the consumers' hands, not in the government's hands. It's a huge sea change. Huge. That's why the Democrats are fighting so hard against Social Security. They think we'll do the same thing to Social Security.

It's nice to know that you have your values in there, but what about the values of common Americans. At least now you can just pass all the costs onto the backs of the people, especially since Medicare is in far worst shape than Social Security right now. Health care is fast becoming a privilege for those who can afford it and not a right for everyone.

Immigration/Border Security

Mr. DeLay: Well, I'd just as soon not make it about me. The House has stated its position, and the House is going to stand by its position. It's not Tom DeLay.

Well, I hate to bias what I'd like to see. I think it's incredibly important - before we even look at guest worker or anything else - to convince the American people that we are protecting our borders. I personally think that we ought to use the eyes and ears of our military. You'll never build a wall high enough or deep enough to keep people from coming over the Rio Grande River. They're gonna come to feed their families no matter what you do. But you can build a seeing-eye wall. I mean, we can read your license plate from satellites. We can set up our systems with Predators [remote-control unmanned surveillance planes] and everything. We don't need these guys down there - and God bless them for doing it - to watch people coming over the border. We can use our military –

Yes. We can spot them, pick up the phone, call the Border Patrol and let them go pick them up. I mean, how hard is that? Ultimately, we need to enforce our laws. The American people need to see us protect our borders and enforce our laws. And then, they'll be willing to talk about a guest-worker program, understanding that once you've gone after those that are here illegally ? you won't get them all - and protecting the borders, then, when you have a guest-worker program that is properly done, for instance, don't let people that have broken the law get up to the front of the line. A simple thing like, if you want to be in the guest-worker program, you have to go home and apply for it in the country of origin. That kind of thing. You got to go back, you can't bring your family. That kind of stuff.

Mr. Hallow: It sounds like you're at odds with the White House on this.

Mr. DeLay: No. I've talked to the president about this. He thinks the country of origin is a good idea. He's open to other ideas. He's a little tough on bringing your family. But the key here is you don't want to bring your family, don't allow it - they go home anyway now illegally. They go back and forth all the time. It's not a matter of breaking up families, it's a matter of good sense. If they bring the family and they get established here, they'll never go home.

Mr. Coombs: Will the House then be pushing for more Border Patrol funding and things like that?

Mr. DeLay: Oh yeah. Absolutely. And we'll be looking at the ideas that are out there like I have stated in using the military ?

Mr. Hallow: Is the White House on board with that?

Mr. DeLay: Not yet. You cannot put soldiers on the border. Soldiers are trained to kill. They're not trained as border patrol or police, and you cannot do that. But you can use their technology.

Mr. Coombs: Is it realistic to think that the millions of illegal immigrants in this country will be willing to return to their countries of origin to apply for a guest-worker program?

Mr. DeLay: If we're enforcing the law, they will. Because it puts a lot of pressure on them if they know that we're not just looking the other way like we're doing now.

Mr. Hanner: Do you agree with the president that the Minuteman Project on the border right now are vigilantes?

Mr. DeLay: No. I'm not sure the president meant that. I think that they're providing an excellent service. It's no different than neighborhood-watch programs and I appreciate them doing it, as long as they can do it safely and don't get involved and do it the way they seem to be doing it, and that's just identifying people for the Border Patrol to come pick up.

Ethics questions

Mr. Coombs: Are all the recent stories and questions about your ethical behavior undercutting your agenda? How badly are they hurting?

Mr. DeLay: No. I'm very proud of what we've already done. I mean, we've sent a class action bill. Our lawsuit abuse reform is well on track. This week, we're going to send the president a bankruptcy bill. We passed the budget as I mentioned. That was tough to do, but we did it. I'm very proud of that. We're doing an energy bill next week. We're going to do [Central American Free Trade Agreement] sometimes in the next few weeks. We've got a very ambitious appropriations schedule. If we pull it off for the first time since I've been here, we're going to have every appropriations bill out of the House by the July Fourth break. We're going to do a lot more lawsuit abuse reform, tax reform. Nothing has slowed down here.

Mr. Coombs: At your regular press conference later today, 30 minutes will be devoted to answering questions about your ethics.

DeLay: I'm not going to answer them.

DeLay contradicts himself a few paragraphs on:

Mr. Dinan: But [Rick Santorum] did encourage you to come forward.

Mr. DeLay: I have been coming forward, and he did it in the context of the way to fight this is to come forward, which is exactly what I have been doing. In fact, I am putting together the entire case and everything that we have, and I'm going to give it to the ethics committee and ask them to look at it.

Mr. Dinan: You've been talking about that for a few weeks. How do you do that specifically?

Mr. DeLay: First of all, you have to go to present conditions. The Democrats don't want an ethics committee for two reasons. One, they know that all of this is privileged and that the only way I can be cleared is through the ethics committee, so they don't want one. Secondly, one of their best friends, [Rep.] Jim McDermott [Washington Democrat], is being investigated, and they don't want him to be kicked out of Congress. I mean, this guy has been found guilty - guilty by a court of law - and they don't want an ethics committee.

What the speaker [of the House] did, I did not do. I had no contact with the speaker when he was working on the rules changes, I had no contact with the speaker when his choices of who goes on the committee - I want to get that very clear. What the speaker did, though, is recognize that the Democrats used the rules of the House to politicize the ethics committee. The Chris Bell issue is a perfect example of that. And it's because of a quirk in the rules that Democrats found and used, and that is, if they don't vote, then you're held in limbo. And all we did was change the rule that said in order to go to the investigative subcommittee, you have to have an affirmative vote of the committee, which means a majority. That's all he did. And, two other process provisions: One, you are allowed to have your lawyer, not a lawyer picked by the ethics committee, to represent you. And two, go back to this admonishment thing. When we were admonished, [Rep.] Candice Miller [Michigan Republican] and I were admonished, first of all we didn't know we were the subject of the investigation, and secondly we had no right to plead our case. They did not ask us, they just admonished us and turned out the stuff to the public. That is absolutely contrary to the Constitution of the United States.

I’m sorry. I thought it was the Democrats, who want to reverse the rules changes in order for the Ethics Committee to function again. Plus, I think the people have a right to know the actions their elected officials take, good and bad, not to hide everything that goes on and seal the information in some Congressional vault. If you don’t want your ethics violations publicized, then it might be a good idea to not violated ethics rules in the first place. Newt Gingrich was right for once, when he said DeLay needs to stop blaming everything on a ‘left-wing’ conspiracy.

Mr. Hurt: Have you ever crossed the line of ethical behavior in terms of dealing with lobbyists, your use of government authority or with fundraising?

Mr. DeLay: Ever is a very strong word. Let me start out by saying, you can never find anything that I have done for personal gain. Period. What I'm doing is what I believe in, I'm doing it the way I believe in it.

The Judiciary

Mr. Hallow: Is there anything you want to change in perception about what you're asking on judges?

Mr. DeLay: Look, I'm for an independent judiciary. I don't know where they get this. When you attack the left's legislative body, they get really upset. But I'm for an independent judiciary. I'm for an independent Congress. I'm for an independent executive. But the Constitution of the United States gives us responsibility for oversight and checks and balances over the executive as well as the judiciary. And we all know that this judiciary is extremely active. I have asked the Judiciary Committee to look at it and give recommendations as to what we ought to do. Read the book Men in Black.

Mr. Dinan: You've been talking about going after activist judges since at least 1997. The [Terri] Schiavo case gives you a chance to do that, but you've recently said you blame Congress for not being zealous in oversight.

Mr. DeLay: Not zealous. I blame Congress over the last 50 to 100 years for not standing up and taking its responsibility given to it by the Constitution. The reason the judiciary has been able to impose a separation of church and state that's nowhere in the Constitution is that Congress didn't stop them. The reason we had judicial review is because Congress didn't stop them. The reason we had a right to privacy is because Congress didn't stop them.

Mr. Dinan: How can Congress stop them?

Mr. DeLay: There's all kinds of ways available to them.

Mr. Dinan: You tried two last year on the Defense of Marriage Act and the Pledge of Allegiance, and the Senate didn't go along with those.

Mr. DeLay: We're having to change a whole culture in this - a culture created by law schools. People really believe that these are nine gods, and that all wisdom is vested in them. This means it's a slow, long-term process. I mean, we passed six bills out of the House limiting jurisdiction. We passed an amendment last September breaking up the Ninth Circuit. These are all things that have passed the House of Representatives.

Mr. Dinan: Are you going to pursue impeaching judges?

Mr. DeLay: I'm not going to answer that. I have asked the Judiciary Committee to look at this. They're going to start holding hearings on different issues. They are more capable than me to look at this issue and take responsibility, given the, whatever, the Constitution.

Right, just shrug off the Constitution of the United States. DeLay probably believes they are just suggested guidelines anyway, just like the ethics rules. At least the founding fathers had the foresight to create checks and balances to limit the power of a branch of government, especially for someone who thinks he is the 'government'.

Ok, you are now free to scream.