main  my blogs  porkbusters  ecosystem  ecotraffic  top posts   hot topics  communities  übercarnival  support    

TRANSCRIPT of blogger conference call with Congressman John Shadegg (R3-AZ), January 19, 2006.

John Shadegg: Hi, this is John Shadegg.

[Background: Hello]

N.Z. Bear: Good morning, Congressman Shadegg. This is N.Z. Bear from The Truth Laid Bear and the Porkbusters Project, I'd like to introduce you to the group.

John Shadegg: OK. Great, thank you.

N.Z. Bear: We have Dale Franks and Jon Henke from QandO blog, we have John Hawkins from Right Wing News, Mike Krempasky from Redstate.org, James Joyner from Outside the Beltway, Greg Patterson from EspressoPundit, La Shawn Barber from La Shawn Barber's Corner, Hugh Hewitt from hughhewitt.com, and Michelle Malkin from michellemalkin.com.

John Shadegg: Super. Thank you very much.

N.Z. Bear: So, if you'd like, we can dive right in. I'm playing the informal role of moderator today. We're keeping the format simple. Congressmen Shadegg, we'd like to first start off with any comments you'd like to present, and then go to questions from the group. In respect for everyone's time I'd ask that everyone keep their questions as concise and to the point as possible.

John Shadegg: The person you need to warn is me - I need to keep my answers as concise as possible.

[Laughter]

N.Z. Bear: At your discretion.

John Shadegg: Yes, I would like to make at least a couple of introductory remarks, and I'll try to keep them brief.

Number one, thank you very much for this opportunity. I greatly appreciate it. This is a whole new world - where there is so much more information available and you, you all are playing a huge and important role in creating an informed electorate, which of course, or an informed body politic, which is at the heart of a democracy and a free and open society. Second, many of you have already unabashedly endorsed or embraced or helped me in this campaign, and I want to say "Thank you very, very much." We are very much a "dark horse" campaign, perhaps this is a dangerous word to use, we are an "insurgency" [laugh] at the moment in this fight. We are gaining a lot of strength, and I'm very very encouraged about it, but quite frankly that would not have happened but for the very solid support that I've gotten from many of you, and I want to say from the bottom of my heart, I appreciate it. It has made this much more do-able than it would have...and indeed it would not have been possible without your support to date. So with that, I guess, I will state very quickly, kind of, the essence of my campaign.

Perhaps the best way to sum it up is, when I came as part of the revolutionary class in 1994, you probably have already read this, for example, in yesterday's Wall Street Journal, I believe we made the American people two clear promises: We promised to shrink the size of government, to have it tax less and spend less and regulate less, and be a smaller force in their lives. We promised to expand individual responsibility and individual liberty, we promised a strong national defense and we promised a return to a government of value and morals that we could be proud of.

The second part of that was, essentially, process reform. That our predecessors in their tenure in power, the Democrats, had allowed powerful members to abuse the system: to direct spending or legislative language to benefit their friends or their cronies. And that that is not what government should be about. Indeed, for example, we talked about open rules, and we promised that we'd have almost...every bill would have an open rule so that you could have amendments offered by anybody. And we just promised to clean up the way Washington works from a procedural standpoint, and make it more open and bring sunshine to it. I believe we have fallen dramatically short, sadly, of keeping both promises. I suppose a defense that some of my colleagues make is had we not been here, government would have grown faster; had we not been here it might have been even less open and clean than it is, but that's hardly a defense.

I think we have to get back to fulfilling those promises. I think we have to get to a very aggressive agenda of putting ideas forward - ideas for changing government. I think I wrote in today's Hill that the Democrats are kind of trapped in the belief of bigger government, kind of the old view of government. We believe in ideas, changing the government and making it more efficient and more productive to the extent that it has to perform any of these services, not just in making it bigger and more bureaucratic and a greater force in our lives.

And the ethics issues, the corruption issues, are distracting the American people from our agenda. Neither of my opponents have a clear record of reform. Indeed, one can argue that they have, at least one of them has, engaged in the practices that I think are abusive. The exercise of power because power can be exercised in favor of associates or friends, or people that will back or benefit them. That's not what conservative government should be about, that's not what Republican government should be about.

So, that's the essence of it, and I've already talked longer than I planned.

La Shawn Barber: OK, I have a question.
John Shadegg: Great.

N.Z. Bear: Sure, if everyone could...

John Shadegg: I'm guessing this is Michelle, but...

La Shawn Barber: This is La Shawn Barber, from La Shawn Barber's Place.

John Shadegg: Oh, hi!

La Shawn Barber: I've learned a little bit about your position on illegal immigration. I'd like for you to elaborate on that a bit, and in particular, did you vote for the border fence?

John Shadegg: Absolutely. I voted for the immigration bill which we passed just as Congress went out of session. The immigration fence was a separate vote within that, and I voted for that. I would argue that the whole immigration reform bill that we passed, the enforcement bill, was a product of the unity dinners that I held on behalf of the conference, bringing in both extremes within the conference, or both sides of that issue within the conference. And Mr. Sensenbrenner's endorsement of my candidacy was at least in part based on the respect he earned for me in that process.

La Shawn Barber: Thank you.

Jim Henke: I have a question. Mr. Congressman, you're associated with the Republican Liberty Caucus.

John Shadegg: Yes.

Jim Henke: And you've come out very strongly in favor of limited government and expanding liberty through the Republican Party. What unique priorities are you going to bring to the leadership role on behalf of that agenda?

John Shadegg: Well, I need to make something very clear. I agree with the Republican Liberty Caucus on most of their issues, I think I am borderline libertarian on many, many issues. I don't happen to agree with the Republican Liberty Caucus on its position on either drug legalization, or that issue. I am a strong opponent of moving in that direction.

Having said that, I have a lifelong record of having fought for restricting government. I think many of you know that when I got here, I introduced almost as the very first bill I ever dropped, the Enumerated Powers Act. That was a bill that said that members of Congress could not...would have to identify in every bill they introduced, the provisions of the Constitution that authorized the Congress to legislate in that area. Quite frankly, as I think many if not all of you know already, Congress is writing laws in all kinds of areas where it has no authority whatsoever. People have forgotten, members of Congress have forgotten, that the Constitution makes this a Congress with specific, limited, enumerated powers. And we have completely ignored that, aided and abetted by the United States Supreme Court. At a minimum, we need to get back to only doing those things that the Constitution allows us to do.

N.Z. Bear: I'll throw in a question here, Congressman. This is N.Z. Bear. You mentioned bringing sunshine to the process. Would you introduce and support a proposal to apply the Freedom of Information Act to Congress?

John Shadegg: Absolutely. Any communication I have with other government officials, I believe, ought to be available. The only caveat that I would put on that is, if a constituent were to write me and there were to be a privacy concern with regard to something they raised, there might need to be a protection there. But I do very much believe in openness and sunshine, and I think sunshine is the greatest disinfectant for government operations.

Dale Franks: Congressman, my name is Dale Franks, I write with QandO. I'm wondering, if I'm not mistaken, my impression is that you have called for at least an exemption or an allowance for "educational travel". That strikes me as being a rather large loophole, depending on how tightly you define "educational travel." How tightly would you define it?

John Shadegg: Well, I think you...number one, yes. I have said that the proposed complete ban on privately-funded travel that has been proffered by the Democrats and by Speaker Hastert and Congressman Drier, I believe, doesn't go at the root of the problem. The root of the problem is abuse of government power. Pick up any corruption scandal story you want to read -- there are six outlined in this morning's Washington Post -- and every single one of them deals with a powerful member steering some kind of a favor to somebody on the outside. Clearly, trips that are boondoggles, golf trips, are outrageous. And maybe you cannot carefully draw a line around educational trips. But what I was trying to do was sound the cautionary note that adding bureaucratic regulations won't solve this problem, and we're deceiving people if we tell them it will. It's not about bureaucratic regulations on lobbyists, it's about getting at fundamental abuse of government power.

But, there are valuable trips. I took a trip to go look at Yucca Mountain. It was a phenomenally important trip that taught me about that nuclear waste facility. One of my colleagues who grew up after the civil rights movement took a trip to the South, where he was taught, essentially, about the civil rights movement, and learned a whole new respect for that issue. Perhaps we cannot draw a tight enough line around privately-funded trips, in which case, then, the answer has to be to publicly fund those trips. Because members need to be educated on these issues, and sometimes you can't do that without going and seeing what actually happened, without seeing Yucca Mountain, for example.

Michelle Malkin: Hi John, Michelle Malkin, real quick follow-up to that. So who funded your trip to Yucca Mountain?

John Shadegg: I think it was the nuclear industry. Maybe it was the nuclear, I think it was essentially the nuclear industry. We did not even stay in a gambling hotel, we spent one night I believe in a Motel Eight or a Motel Six, and drove out to Yucca Mountain and spent the day there. And it was no "day at the beach" but it was a huge education. And no golf, no, you know, there literally was no boondoggle aspect to it. And maybe, to give the American people confidence in their government, maybe we have to simply say: "Ok, we've got to government-fund those trips." But if we, if we tell members that you've got to fund them with campaign money, as has been discussed, that's worse! We already have members under too much pressure to raise too much money. So, you either would have to carefully and strictly circumscribe private travel, or fund it by taxpayer money, so that members can learn what they need to learn. And maybe that would cut down on the amount of this travel. Certainly, there are many abuses that need to go away.

Hugh Hewitt: Congressman, Hugh Hewitt, two questions, a little inside baseball. You mentioned in your opening remarks that at least one of your opponents had engaged in the exercise of power to benefit friends. Who was that, and what were you talking about?

John Shadegg: Roy Blunt. And I was talking at least one incident, which is well-publicized, and that was shortly after he was elected Majority Whip, in the...I would probably say a little bit unfairly...in the "dark of night" without the knowledge of other members of the leadership. He inserted language into the Homeland Security bill, I believe it was in 2003, which would have benefited Philip Morris, at a time when -- and this is broadly reported - he was seeing, had a relationship with, a Philip Morris lobbyist. I think you all know the story about that. In addition, and that was pretty well acknowledged on, um, the news shows Sunday morning, Fox News Sunday where he was confronted with this. What didn't come out there was that in addition to his relationship with the lobbyist, his son is a lobbyist for Philip Morris back home. I mean, he has had the opportunity to exercise power to benefit, quite frankly, his friends or his supporters. And he tried to do it. In that instance it was so embarrassing, it was caught by staff and it was stopped, because it was inappropriate. And there are other instances.

Hugh Hewitt: All right, Congressman and the other follow-up is. Do you have publicly supporting you any committee chairs or other senior members of the caucus at this point?

John Shadegg: I'm extremely pleased that yesterday, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Jim Sensenbrenner, an "old bull" if there ever was one -- he has chaired two different committees in his tenure here, been here much longer than I -- endorsed me. And he endorsed me because he said I'm the right guy for the job, and that I demonstrated in the Unity Dinner process that I can listen to all segments of the Conference, and can bring people toward consensus.

Mike Krempasky: Congressman, this is Mike Krempasky. First, thanks for being here, and I just want to ask two questions, and one surrounds the Medicare bill. And specifically, I'd like you to speak to Congressman Blunt's assertion that the real purpose of his campaign for the Majority Leader post is to "continue" shrinking the size of government - and I didn't know that we had actually started that process.

[Laughter]

And specifically, I would like you to comment on his providing office space for pharmaceutical industry lobbyists during the arm-twisting on that bill. Is that appropriate, is there something that the Majority Leader's post can actually create a rule that says that this simply isn't appropriate and shall not happen again? And I'd just like you to chat about that and I have one quick follow-up.

John Shadegg: Sure. It is absolutely inappropriate. People in... Look: Democracy only survives so long the people it governs have faith in its integrity and its honesty. And when people hear stories like that, they go...they are disgusted, they choose not to participate, they lose faith in the very essence of what this nation is about. It simply cannot be tolerated in any way, shape or form. With regard to shrinking the size of government, I believe everybody on this call knows that one of the most disastrous things we've done in recent time on that score is to pass the Medicare Prescription Drug Bill. I voted against it, in the face of intense pressure. It clearly expanded the government beyond its ability to pay. That program was in trouble before we expanded it.

I want to make a real quick point here: The original intent of adding a prescription drug benefit was a trade-off. It was to say, we're going to get rid of fee-for-service Medicare, which is phenomenally expensive, where Mrs. Smith can go to three different podiatrists to have her foot problem dealt with, and the government has to pay for all three, even though they all three did the exact same thing. And say, well, if you'll give up that expensive cost to the government, we'll give you prescription drugs. At the end...that's what was originally proposed. At the end of the day, members said, "Oh my gosh! We can't take anybody's benefit away, so we'll just add prescription drugs on top of it!" And we are delusional to believe that we could pay for that. And it is a serious threat to the financial integrity of this country, it's a promise we can't fulfill, and it is an unjustifiable burden on future generations - our kids and our grandkids.

Mike Krempasky: Thanks, Congressman. My quick follow-up to that is, is that it seems that like there has been a consistent tension between, especially, folks, leadership and I think particularly in the House, between representing their caucus, or leading their caucus, and representing the White House's interests in Congress. So how do you deal with, if you were to become the Majority Leader, how do you deal with the pressure that comes from the White House to push the White House's agenda, which are obviously not always sound conservative plans, particularly on spending, and the, sort of need to get something passed?

John Shadegg: When I got here, I made the point that leadership has the obligation to get something passed, it's membership, membership's job to make sure we pass the right thing. And I've been essentially a bomb-thrower trying to stop us from doing the wrong thing all along. With regard to our relationship with the White House, I am always hesitant, reticent to criticize President Bush -- certainly on foreign policy I applaud what he's done in expanding freedom. But I've been disappointed in his failure to restrain spending. But more importantly I think our leadership has failed to stand up to him and say, "Wait a minute. We have a job here, and we see the world slightly differently." And I think it's important to stand up to him and define us, the House, differently.

I might add, as I listen to your question, there was a time shortly after the revolution when we were really fighting for the people's agenda. Now I think it can be argued we're fighting for our own internal agenda, and not for what the people want done. And I think we need to wake up and get back to that. We need to quit bragging about managing or passing routine bills, and talk about fulfilling the promises we made in 1994.

John Hawkins: Congressman, John Hawkins. I've got a question and quick follow-up for you. To begin with, you've been endorsed by Human Events, National Review, Club for Growth, and I've yet to see a blogger endorse anyone other than you, [laughter] so there's no question you're the people's choice. Does that make a difference, or is this whole thing really going to be decided by who offers who what behind the scenes?

John Shadegg: I believe it makes a difference. I believe that if this election were held instantaneously, perhaps we wouldn't have had time to make our case to the American people. I jumped into this race at a point when, quite frankly, I thought it was about to be closed out, without the conference having a full discussion - the conference meaning Republicans in the House - having a full discussion of how much trouble we are in for not having fulfilled both of the promises we made in 1994, neither having shrunk the government, nor having cleaned it up adequately. And, kind of, front page news is our failure demonstrative, or demonstrated failure to clean it up. I jumped in because I was afraid that was about to be eclipsed by one of the candidates going over the top without members of the conference literally, kind of, examining where we are. With your help, with the help of the conservative media you've talked about, and the help of bloggers, this whole debate has slowed down. Because my candidacy, while still viewed as a dark horse, is viewed as having stopped any candidate from going over the top and believe, kind of believe, [inaudible] people recognize no candidate will win on the first ballot.

That is giving us, as Republicans in the Congress and as Republicans across the country, [time] to more seriously reflect, introspectively, on where we are and what we're doing. And I think you are having an impact, I think people across the country are having an impact. I have conversations with my colleagues every day in which they'll begin the conversation by saying, "Look, Congressman...I'm really sorry," or "Look, John, I'm really sorry, but yesterday or before you jumped into this race I committed to..." [fill in the blank] and all too often, it's Mr. Blunt. And then I begin to make my case to them and talk about these issues, and because of the background you're providing where you're raising these issues, they listen very carefully to me, and they are beginning to examine their consciences, and to reflect on whether or not, for the greater good, they have to say, "Look, I made that promise before Congressman Shadegg was in the race. Quite frankly, I made it before I fully reflected on the consequences of this decision, and I'm switching my support to John Shadegg." That's certainly what I'm trying to do, I think it's a worthwhile exercise, and it wouldn't be happening without the pressure you're putting on or the information you are presenting.

John Hawkins: And the follow-up question: You've given up your leadership position. Do you think there's any concern since Mr. Blunt hasn't given up his, that maybe, you know, there might be some retaliation if people go the other way? Since he's still holding, you know, even if he lost, he would still have a powerful leadership position.

John Shadegg: There is absolutely no doubt that many members are concerned about retaliation or the price they will pay. I think many of you know that I've announced that I am not going to release any numbers, I'm not in the numbers game. In part that's because if you release numbers, you've got to release names. There are members that are supporting me who have released their own names, but if I release numbers, I've got to release names, and I will tell you that many of the people that are on board with John Shadegg don't want their names released for that very reason. So, that is in fact a genuine concern, people recognize that Mr. Blunt's going to be in a, or have a concern that, Mr. Blunt will be in a position of power no matter how this race comes out, and too much of their lives are affected by decisions that can be made here, that could be impacted, or that he could impact. In addition to which the unfairness of that is that, all the candidates for Whip pretty well recognize if they don't vote for Mr. Blunt, there is no office for them to vote for, and that applies to their close supporters as well.

Greg Patterson: Congressman, this is Greg Patterson from Phoenix.

John Shadegg: Hey Greg.

Greg Patterson: How are you?

John Shadegg: Good.

Greg Patterson: Quick question for you. I'm sure you're aware, but I'll give a little bit of background on it, of the Flores case in Arizona, which is a case in which English instruction has to be given for elementary school, K-12 students here. That is a case that the state has lost, as you know, and a federal judge is in the process of holding our legislature in contempt. Fines start at $500,000 a day almost immediately, and they're going to move up to $2 million a day unless we can, our legislature can pass something to address English language learners. My understanding is that that is based on a federal statute, and it seems to me that it's tantamount to commandeering our legislature at the moment, that they have to pass something that is adequate in the federal judge's eyes. Would you be interested in looking at that case specifically, but more importantly at the general unfunded mandate provisions that are out there?

John Shadegg: Absolutely, Greg, but this is an ongoing battle between the legislative branch and the judicial branch, where the judicial branch, I believe, abuses its power. I do not believe the judicial branch should be able to make these kinds of judgment calls. As you know, they step in and even demand levels of funding. And levels of funding for certain programs. The judiciary has a job: its job is to interpret the law and apply the law. Its job is not to get involved in policy-setting. I personally believe that the case has been made over, and over and over that English immersion works for kids, it's better than the alternatives, and that's a judgment call of the legislative body, not a call for the Congress to make, or [correcting himself] for the judiciary to make.

Michelle Malkin: Congressman, it's Michelle Malkin. A follow-up on the Medicare question?

John Shadegg: Mm. Hmm.

Michelle Malkin: One of the things that bloggers have been calling attention to recently is the debacle with enrollment in the Part D of the program. Are you aware of that?

John Shadegg: Yes.

Michelle Malkin: And, what exactly do you propose be done to fix that?

John Shadegg: Michelle, I don't know that I have the answer. I mean, the correct answer is -- quite frankly the Bush Administration vigorously opposes this - would be to suspend the application of the law, let us look at restructuring it. One of the points I wasn't able to make before is, every American is concerned about those people who cannot afford prescription drugs. Those for whom there is a daily decision between "Do I pay my rent bill, or do I fill my prescription?" But that is a relatively small handful of Americans. One of the huge flaws in this bill is that it gives the benefits to everyone. This language gives the benefits to the wealthiest of Americans. That makes no sense at all. It seems to me we should have been looking at aiding those who are real need, and who are making that kind of life-and-death decision, because we've made a decision that nobody in this country should die for lack of medical care, and prescription drugs are key to that. But trying to provide this benefit to every American is a hugely flawed proposal, and as long as you try to apply it to every American, it becomes phenomenally complicated, and it's over their head. And that's the problem we face.

Michelle Malkin: Right. Well, and seeing the consequences of that now, do you think it would be any easier to argue, not just to the White House but to the American people, that means testing was what we should have done in the first place, and let's go back and fix it now?

John Shadegg: Well, I certainly think we should be arguing that means testing is the right answer, I was arguing it before. Our friends on the Democrat side of course hate that passionately, because they don't want to acknowledge that this is a welfare program. This is a country of great charity, where we want to make sure that the least among us are cared for. And yeah, I think that the problems of the program put us in a new position to re-debate the structure of the program. And it should not be a program that Bill Gates can take advantage of. That's insane.

Michelle Malkin: One last question on immigration and border security. The border enforcement bill has passed. Are you going to support whatever the iteration of the Bush-backed guest worker program is going to be now?

John Shadegg: Absolutely not. I mean, I'll make no secret of the fact that I ultimately believe, or I believe that ultimately a guest-worker program, not to allow those already illegally here to stay, but to address the issue of is there a level of foreign workers that we need into this country legally, probably has to be a part of the solution. But -- I believe the...if the Bush Administration is going to embrace the Kennedy/McCain bill, or McCain/Kennedy bill, that goes way too far for me. And I'm not going to embrace it. I think we need to be very careful about discussing this issue. I oppose any form of amnesty that says to somebody here illegally, we're going to reward you and let you stay, by kind of waiving the requirements of our law. That will incentivize people to come across again illegally, and just say, "Well, America will wait five years and grant a new amnesty." But I believe guest worker is a separate concept. We have to deal with those who are here illegally by a structured program that says, "You need to surface." I happen to favor John Kyl's proposal, that we say to them, "You need to go back to your country of origin and seek to come into the country appropriately." I certainly think we can't give them a path to citizenship. But I believe that the work...foreign worker issue is a separate issue that at some point will be a part of the solution. We need to make sure that the people confronting our border and trying to cross illegally are the bad actors and we can catch them, and if there are people who want to come into work, let's examine the appropriate level, if there is one, and let's get them coming into the country legally, where we know who they are, where they are, how long they can stay, what the terms of their staying are.

N.Z. Bear: Congressman, this is N.Z. again. In the blogs, we try and work real-time here, so I'm going to read you a flash that just came over CNN, ask for your general reaction, and also a specific question. It says: "Al-Jazeera airs audiotaped message reportedly from Osama bin Laden, warning that plans for attacks inside the U.S. are already underway." And my question would be, did you support the implementation of the Department of Homeland Security in its current form, and do you feel that our efforts to protect the country are going in the right direction?

John Shadegg: To answer the first question, yes, I supported it. Sadly, I believe it, perhaps I should not have supported it. I had somebody say to me the other day: "Congress does two things well. Nothing, and overreact." I think it's fair to say that we have not - in combining and creating a massive new agency called the Department of Homeland Security, I'm not convinced that we have moved the ball forward. Having said that, I want to make sure that a lot of credit goes to the people, including the President, who have so far, even perhaps hampered by the creation of this new department, been able to stop another attack in the United States. We need to be extremely aggressive in going after this, and I'm not going to say creating a new bureaucracy was the answer, but we have made, perhaps in spite of that kind of "window dressing" solution which the Congress opposed, perhaps at the behest of Democrats screaming the sky was falling, we have done a good job of stopping a further terrorist attack in the United States. We need to get much better.

Hugh Hewitt: Congressman Shadegg, Hugh Hewitt. There have been some reports, including one from one of your colleagues from North Carolina, that suspected terrorists have crossed the southern border. Have you seen any reliable reports of that?

John Shadegg: I don't know that I've...I'm trying to...I certainly have heard of reports, it is clear that there are non-Mexicans crossing our border, absolutely no question about it. I mean, Michelle is the expert on this, but they're coming across every day, and we would be foolish not to think that some of them are terrorists.

Hugh Hewitt: But have you seen any report that, in fact, anyone suspected of al-Qaida links or other terrorist links have indeed crossed?

John Shadegg: I'm searching my memory. I think the best example I can cite is that I believe there was a crossing in southern Arizona, where they found papers that...in the desert, where there were things in the papers or the documents they found that suggested links to al-Qaida. And there may be others that I've, that I'm, that I've seen and have forgotten, but that's the most specific I can get you.

Hugh Hewitt: Two last questions before I have to run off, Congressman. If you have any other evidence of that, would your office release that?

John Shadegg: Sure.

Hugh Hewitt: OK. And did you support the President's authority to implement NSA surveillance of al-Qaida in contact with their agents in the United States?

John Shadegg: Well, we never got asked to support or not support it, but I do support it. I believe we have to do everything possible to protect this country, and I think the American people are missing the fact that, that... two things: One, every NSA wiretap or gathering of information which occurred, as I understand it, involved either someone in the United States calling someone in a foreign country or vice versa, where we had prior intelligence that suggested that one of those people was a foreign agent or linked to al-Qaida. If we can't listen to those calls, I don't know how we protect ourselves.

Hugh Hewitt: So the President has inherent authority to do that without a FISA warrant, in your opinion?

John Shadegg: The legal questions are going to get sorted out. Experts are telling me he does, I suppose there are opinions on the other side. To me it gets to be a little "nit-pickey." Quite frankly, you can say well, maybe at an earlier point he should have gone back to the judge-approved process, but boy, I don't think we should be picking nits right now. I think we ought to be lauding the fact that there hasn't been another attack in America, and I'm certainly willing to hear out the legal arguments thoroughly, but I'm not going to criticize the President. I fundamentally support what he did, and I think when you have that kind of evidence, that...I mean, this isn't we just picked up the phone and listened to anybody having a foreign sea, an overseas call. This wasn't you have a cousin working in London and so you call your cousin. We had evidence before this happened.

Hugh Hewitt: Thank you congressman.

Dale Franks: Congressman, this is Dale Franks, let me follow up on that. Would you support, then, some sort of legislation looking at FISA, perhaps, and trying to "regularize" this process of surveillance to alleviate some of the civil liberties concerns?

John Shadegg: Absolutely. As I said, I don't know quite precisely where the line should have been drawn. I can make an argument that what he did very close to 9/11 was absolutely appropriate. I think, I haven't resolved the legal question in my mind, but that's not what you asked me. You asked me, should we be looking at drawing a brighter line, so that it is clear, and I think the answer to that question is yes. The process of having an independent third party in there is a good one, and where it can be done, and can be done expeditiously without jeopardizing our national security, it should be done.

Hugh Hewitt: Well, Congressman, you've hit the seam right now between QandO and me, and some national security conservatives. I think the robust exercise of Article II powers is essential to defending the country, and I don't want FISA involved. Are you going to put out some sort of statement on this?

John Shadegg: Quite frankly, it's not at the heart of my campaign, but, so I guess I hadn't planned to. I guess maybe in light of this discussion we'll look at it.

Hugh Hewitt: Thank you.

Mike Krempasky: Congressman, it's Mike Krempasky, and I just want to follow up with one more question. And it really sort of tries to get to the heart of the level of commitment to these conservative principles. You know, back during the Medicare fight, and since then certainly, you know I've heard from members of the RSC sort of mulling around the notion of actually going as far as to have a revolt on a rule, as a way to "kneecap" leadership from spending us out of house and home. Were you ever part of those discussions, and what was your sort of general perspective on that? Would you be willing to side with the Democrats to stop a bad bill from leadership?

John Shadegg: How much time do you have? [laughs] I take great pride, and probably the most fun I ever had in the United States Congress was bringing down rules. And I brought down plenty of Newt Gingrich's rules. Me, and Tom Coburn, and in those days Mark Souter, and Mark Sanford - the whole crowd of - Steve Largent, the whole crowd of us "revolutionaries" brought down plenty of rules. Now let me explain to people: when I came in, we were told by the Gingrich administration that you can never vote against a previous question, because that turns the floor over to the minority. But they never even told us not to bring down a rule, and so we did bring down rules. I believe that bringing down rules is the way to check the leadership when they are out of touch with membership. Let me give you a perfect example.

Probably the most recent rule that John Shadegg led the fight to bring down had to do with the Bankruptcy Act. As you will recall, Mr. Schumer inserted language in the Bankruptcy Act which was outrageous. What it said was that if you are an Environmental protester and you are sued for some of your efforts as a protestor and a judgment is taken against you, you can use the Bankruptcy Act to protect your assets. But if you are a right-to-life protestor, you would be barred from using the Bankruptcy Act to protect your assets. That is, and would have been, an outrage - a complete violation of free speech. At the end of 2004, and this record is clear, you can ask any of the leaders whose names I'm about to mention, in the middle of the night on the last night of the 2004 session before the election we were told that leadership was going to bring that bill before the floor and try to pass it. John Shadegg and Jeff Flake and Joe Pitts and Chris Smith went to the majority leader's office right off the floor and got in the face of Dick Armey, who I think was under pressure from other leaders, and said: "If you try to put the Bankruptcy Bill with the Schumer language in it out on the floor we will beat you. We will bring that bill down." When... no it was, so they backed down, and they didn't put the bill on the floor.

Then, we came back in a lame duck, and all of the right-to-life readers out there will know this story, and in the lame duck they said, quite frankly, they said they were going to humiliate conservatives because they were going to bring that bill to the floor and pass it. John Shadegg led the fight - I went to Joe Pitts and Chris Smith, and said -- and you can ask both of them - "We can't just vote against the bill. We have to bring down the rule. We have to send them a message that they are out of touch with America, and with our base, and if they bring the bill to the floor we will beat the rule." We did that, and we beat their rule. And instead of them humiliating us, we humiliated them. And I will tell you, if you ask Chris Smith or you ask Joe Pitts what happened in that case, it was John Shadegg that inspired them to help me bring down the rule, and Jeff Flake. And we said, look: there are times when you have to draw the line. And we pointed out that if they had done that on the eve of the 2004 election, the right-to-life movement would have had the absolute right to simply abandon us. And that's why they backed down before the election and didn't offer the bill. But then after the election they tried to bring it up, and we beat the bill. And I would argue that that was one of the biggest victories for the right-to-life movement in recent years. A lot of this is, you know, it's easy to say you're pro-life, it's easy to say you're pro-reform, it takes some guts to go actually do it and fight. And I spoke on the floor in that debate and talked about the outrage of the way Schumer was perverting that law.

I'm going to have to run. Sorry I get worked up about that one [laughter] but I feel strongly.



Thanks to Kowalski at Redstate for transcribing this session.