Let's recap what we know at the <$Ad$>moment.
This weekend Congress was working on a massive $388 billion omnibus spending bill that will cover all manner of federal spending. But at the request of Rep. Ernest Istook of Oklahoma, chairman of the House Appropriations Transportation Subcommittee, a special provision was inserted into the bill which allows the Chairmen of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees or their "agents" to review any American's tax return with no restrictions whatsoever.
Specifically, none of the privacy law restrictions -- or the criminal and civil penalties tied to them -- would apply when the Chair or anybody he or she designates as his or her "agent" looked at your tax return.
The exact language of the provision is as follows ...
"Hereinafter, notwithstanding any other provision of law governing the disclosure of income tax returns or return information, upon written request of the Chairman of the House or Senate Committee on Appropriations, the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service shall allow agents designated by such Chairman access to Internal Revenue Service facilities and any tax returns or return information contained therein."
The provision was slipped into the bill at the last moment. And, at least on the Democratic side, no one was told about it until some Dems caught it at the last moment.
Senate Republicans quickly backtracked, calling the provision a mistake or snafu and insisting they knew nothing about it. You can see some of the back-and-forth that took place on the Senate floor in this AP piece at CNN.
Sen. Stevens of Alaska, Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, originally blamed the provision on a 'staffer'. But later, according to the AP, Sen. Frist and "congressional aides" said it was inserted at the behest of Rep. Istook.
And in case you're wondering, Istook's staffers are apparently telling constituents that Rep. Istook had to step out of the room for a moment when the DeLay Rule was being voted on.
Maybe he had to finish reading over Ronnie Earle's tax return?
--Josh Marshall
Some things, like the DeLay Rule, are outrageous but not that surprising.
But what I'm about to describe is outrageous and almost literally unbelievable.
As you've probably heard, the congress is pushing through a big omnibus spending bill this weekend. And at the last minute, Republican leaders tried to slip in a provision that would give certain committee chairman and their staffers unlimited access to any American's tax return, with none of the standard privacy protections applying.
You heard that right.
They could pull anyone's tax return, read it over and do whatever they wanted with the information. Those who would have this power would be the chairs and ranking members of the senate and house appropriations committees and subcommittees and "their designees."
The key is that the privacy rights provisions, and criminal and civil penalties that go with them, don't apply for the appropriations committees.
At the last minute, Senate Democrats caught the language (keep in mind these omnibus bills can be like phone books), protested and the Republicans beat a hasty retreat. Some of it is discussed in this AP article at MSNBC, though they lamely call it a "tax-disclosure gaffe."
The Republicans are acting like it was all an innocent mistake. And it seems clear that there are Republican senators who didn't know anytihng about it and are pissed. But clearly this was no accident, unless provisions have started to write themselves.
More soon.
Late Update: Here is the text of the provision in question (emphasis added)
"Hereinafter, notwithstanding any other provision of law governing the disclosure of income tax returns or return information, upon written request of the Chairman of the House or Senate Committee on Appropriations, the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service shall allow agents designated by such Chairman access to Internal Revenue Service facilities and any tax returns or return information contained therein."
Even Later Update: Apparently the provision was placed into the bill at the request of Rep. Istook of Oklahoma. Istook is chairman of the House Appropriations Transportation Subcommittee.
I'm not sure if it's relevant to what happened here, but the Treasury Department falls under the jurisdiction of Istook's subcommittee.
--Josh Marshall
The anti-Ronnie Earle campaign is kicking off on the Texas Republican party website, along with a petition to strip Earle's office of jurisdiction over DeLay and Co.'s campaign finance and other in proper use of public office shenanigans.
Breaking the law has consequences. And Tom DeLay is going to do everything in his power to avoid them -- with the help of the House GOP caucus, the Republican party of Texas, and of course the DeLay Machine, which David Brooks rightly compares to the machine Boss Tweed ran in New York during the Gilded Age.
--Josh Marshall
Breaking DeLay Rule newsflash out of Minnesota, from the Minneapolis Star Tribune.
Like a scattering of papers around the country today (see below), the Star Tribune went down the list of their local GOP congressmen and put the question to them straight out: how'd you vote on the DeLay Rule.
As reported earlier on TPM, Jim Ramstad's in the Shays Handful voting against. Gil Gutknecht couldn't make it to the meeting but wants to be included in the Handful after the fact.
But Mark Kennedy and John Kline drawing a "private vote" line in the sand.
But in a hint at what Kline's private vote might have been, the congressman's chief of staff Steve Sutton says Kline is "perfectly comfortable with the compromise that's been reached."
--Josh Marshall
New Jersey Flash Update!
The Asbury Park Press tracked down Congressmen LoBiondo, Saxton and Garrett and got them to admit they supported the DeLay Rule. Chris Smith told the paper he couldn't make the meeting and wouldn't say whether he was in the Handful or down with DeLay.
Ferguson and Frelinghuysen couldn't be reached; though Ferguson staffers have already conceded to TPM reader-constituents that he supported the DeLay Rule.
For Saxton it's a hard but rapid fall from 'private vote' to letter-writer to just coming clean.
--Josh Marshall
Last night we brought you breaking news that the congresswoman from Rush Limbaugh's hometown of Cape Girardeau, Missouri, Jo Ann Emerson had hopped into the Shays Handful, coming out against the DeLay Rule.
But apparently not to the Bugman's face!
From this <$NoAd$> morning's update in the Southeast Missourian ...
The lawmakers, after hours of debate, adopted a revised rule that would require members of Congress to step down from leadership posts only if convicted of crimes."We debated that for three hours at least," Emerson said. The caucus was attended by more than 250 GOP lawmakers.
Emerson was out of the room when the vote was taken. The Southeast Missouri congresswoman said several lawmakers were out of the room when the party leadership suddenly called for a voice vote on the issue.
The 8th District lawmaker said she had stepped out of the room to meet briefly with Southeast Missouri civic leaders to discuss U.S. 67 road improvements.
"I was only out of the room for 10 minutes, maybe," she said.
When she returned, Emerson discovered that a voice vote had been taken.
While there wasn't a roll call vote, Emerson said that "at least a couple dozen" of her GOP House colleagues opposed the rule change.
The decision might have been different if the issue had been decided by secret ballot rather than voice vote, Emerson said.
She bugged out.
--Josh Marshall
Bob Novak on the DeLay Rule .<$NoAd$>..
The closed-door meeting of House Republicans Wednesday that was supposed to quickly protect House Majority Leader Tom DeLay from a political indictment turned into a contentious debate lasting several hours. Rep. Rob Portman of Ohio, the appointed chairman of the House Republican Leadership, came up with a compromise that won assent.The original proposal would have simply repealed the 1993 Republican rule requiring the resignation from the House party leadership of any member who is criminally indicted. The Portman compromise sets up a review by the House Republican Steering Committee of each case.
The change in the rule was inspired by the prospect that Democratic District Atty. Ronnie Earle in Austin, Texas, may soon indict DeLay in connection with his successful congressional redistricting in Texas. At Wednesday's conference, several Republican House members expressed fear that a straight repeal of the rule would send a bad political message.
I don't know who's on the House Republican Steering Committee in the next congress. But if I'm not mistaken, it's automatically chaired by the Speaker of the House, Denny Hastert, and comprised of members chosen by the leadership. And since Hastert works for DeLay (not on paper, but ...) and DeLay chooses who's on that committee, I doubt he's got too much to be worried about.
--Josh Marshall
Michigan's Dave Camp voted for the DeLay Rule.
But he tells the local paper that he'd recommend dethroning any caucus leader indicted on a "legitimate charge" rather than the politically motivated type coming from the likes of DA Ronnie Earle.
Camp's statement came after the Midland Daily News asked Camp's spokesman for comment on the DeLay Rule and how Camp voted.
--Josh Marshall
Tom DeLay, New Jersey's Mike Ferguson's got your back.
After a bit of hemming and hawing, Ferguson staffers have told a number of TPM reader-constituents that Ferguson voted for the DeLay Rule.
Maybe the $10,000 he got from DeLay's leadership PAC helped put the issue in a clearer light.
Late Update: Contrary to the number I noted above, the list of ARMPAC giving at the Campaign for America's Future (CAF) website lists Ferguson as the single biggest recipient of DeLay largesse in the entire congress -- clocking in at a whopping $42,403. You might say he got the largest largesse. Looking at the CAF chart, I'm not sure what explains the discrepancy between this number and that provided by the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), which I listed above. The CRP number is for the 2004 giving cycle. So I assume the $42,403 includes the previous two cycles Ferguson ran in (2000 and 2002). In any case, no wonder Mike Ferguson's got DeLay's back. He's already in the guy's pocket so it's not far to travel.
--Josh Marshall
It seems that Illinois Congressman Henry Hyde couldn't make it to the House GOP caucus meeting to vote up or down on the DeLay Rule. No definitive word yet on whether he supports the rule or not.
The same goes for California's Richard Pombo. Pombo staffers are telling constituents he couldn't make it to the meeting either. No one can find out if he has a position on the DeLay Rule.
--Josh Marshall
Rush Limbaugh's hometown congresswoman coming out against the DeLay Rule?
The Southeast Missourian seems to be saying that Jo Ann Emerson is in the Shays Handful.
Here's the update they put up this evening ...
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay would retain his leadership post even if indicted by a Texas prosecutor under a GOP rule change opposed by a minority of Republicans, including U.S. Rep. Jo Ann Emerson of Cape Girardeau."I think that it sets a bad example," Emerson said today from Capitol Hill. "I just don't think that it passes the smell test."
For more on this story, read Saturday's Southeast Missourian.
We'll stand by for the big news in <$NoAd$> tomorrow's paper.
--Josh Marshall
One surreal element to the drama over the DeLay Rule is that practically every member of the Republican House caucus is arguing that Ronnie Earle's grand jury investigation into the DeLay Machine is so dubious on its face that it is presumptively partisan and illegitimate in nature.
Meanwhile, while that's going on, and Rep. DeLay is volubly proclaiming vindication, on the other end of the Capitol you've got the hearings into the rapidly expanding 'Indian gaming' scandal in which two chief capos in the DeLay Machine have had to take the fifth on every question they're asked.
(Actually, it might be better to say 'soldiers' than 'capos'. I don't have my org chart in front of me.)
For some insights into what the scandal's about, see this article by Lou Dubose in the Texas Observer. And for helpful running commentary on the matter, stop by our friend Marshall Wittman's BullMoose blog. Finally, for a good primer on how the DeLay Machine works, see this article by Nick Confessore.
--Josh Marshall
Staffers for Minnesota Congressman Jim Ramstad spent the last two days telling constituents that they didn't know how he voted, that he was a letter-writer and even that it was a 'private vote'.
But late this afternoon Rep. Ramstad sent out emails letting constituents know he was in the Shays Handful voting against the DeLay Rule.
--Josh Marshall
House Ethics Committee round-up ...
There are five Republicans on the Ethics Committee (and five Dems).
Of those, Chairman Joel Hefley of Colorado is in the Shays Handful. He voted against the DeLay Rule. Missouri's Kenny Hulshof is in there too.
Ohio's Steven LaTourette is telling constituents that he's in the Shays Handful; but as of yet we've seen no press reports that confirm this.
As we reported earlier today, Illinois Congresswoman Judy Biggert seems to be hanging tough with the 'private vote' line, refusing to say how she voted.
We had Washington state's Doc Hastings down as a letter-writer. But late this afternoon we received word that a Hastings staffer told at least one constituent that Hastings supported the DeLay Vote but wouldn't reveal how he voted because it was a 'secret' vote. (I guess he sort of wanted to mix up the categories a bit.) If anyone hears more on Hastings, let us know.
--Josh Marshall
Washington state's Doc Hastings is not only a member of the House Ethics Committee. We had him down as a letter-writer. But now we're hearing that while he won't disclose how he voted because it was a 'secret' vote that he does support the DeLay Rule.
If other Hastings constituents have gotten a clearer word, please let us know.
As of yet, we haven't seen any press reportage about how Hastings voted.
--Josh Marshall
This local Milwaukee blog has Wisconsin's Tom Petri down as voting for the DeLay Rule and Paul Ryan in the Shays handful.
They couldn't get a straight word from James Sensenbrenner or Mark Green.
From last night, we have Sensenbrenner down as a letter-writer.
--Josh Marshall
Couldn't make it.
Illinois Congressman John Shimkus couldn't make it to the GOP House caucus meeting. So he didn't vote on the DeLay Rule.
His staff is telling constituents that he he has no position on the matter.
So far, there seems to be no press reportage on Shimkus and the DeLay Rule.
--Josh Marshall
We had Michigan's Joe Knollenberg down as a letter-writer. But now we've heard from two constituents who tell us that under determined questioning, Rep. Knollenberg's staff concedes that he did vote for the DeLay Rule. So far, we've seen no press reportage about how Knollenberg voted. But we'll let you know if we see any.
--Josh Marshall
Also of interest is this list of GOP House members who got money from Rep. Tom DeLay last cycle (actually from his 'leadership PAC' ARMPAC) and how much they got.
--Josh Marshall
From Rep. DeLay's pro-DeLay Rule press <$NoAd$>conference this morning ...
Tom DeLay: Thank you, Henry. That's touching and I appreciate it.By the Ethics Committee's action yesterday, they confirmed Chris Bell's utter contempt for Congress. And by continuing their announced strategy to forego the battle of ideas and instead personally attack Republican leaders, the Democrat Party has confirmed its utter contempt for the boundaries of political discourse. DELAY: Yesterday, the bipartisan House Ethics Committee found Representative Chris Bell, Democrat of Texas, in direct violation of rules for his part in a premeditated, partisan and malicious campaign to undermine the majority and the integrity of the House of Representatives.
Mr. Bell's libelous complaint against me, which the committee disposed of on a unanimous, bipartisan basis, without finding me in violation of any rule, has resulted in that same bipartisan committee finding Mr. Bell guilty of nine separate counts of rule violations.
The committee found, as we have always held, that Mr. Bell's complaint contained inflammatory language, exaggerated charges and serious misstatements on both fact and the law.
He acted out of anger at losing his seat in Congress, blamed everyone but himself for his loss, and turned his obsessive rage on me. In other words, Mr. Bell has been exposed for the partisan stalker that he is.
I understand the Democrat Party's adjustment to their national minority status is frustrating, but their crushing defeat in the elections earlier this month, after two more years of Democrat obstruction and vicious personal attacks, should show them that the American people are tired of the politics of personal destruction.
It is a shame that Democrat anger at their loss of power has manifested itself in contemptible behavior like Mr. Bell's, but hopefully the Ethics Committee's nine-count, categorical, bipartisan rebuke will finally end Democrats' obsessive desire to undo the last six national elections.
Later, after praise from various House colleagues (Blackburn, Bonilla, Carter, Doolittle, Dreier and Linder), Rep. DeLay took questions ...
QUESTION: Mr. DeLay, six weeks ago, when the Ethics Committee sent you a letter, some of the same members standing up here said that the committee had been influenced by partisan pressures and that it was inaccurate in finding against you. Now we see everybody saying it's bipartisan and it's accurate in this nine-count, as you say, rebuke of Mr. Bell.What's happened in six weeks?
DELAY: First of all, your question, frankly, shows the problem here. I think there's a double standard in the media that has been going on here.
The only two members of the House of Representatives that I know of right now that have actually violated the law is Nancy Pelosi and Jim McDermott.
Your question insinuates that I had a sanction brought against me in that letter. In that letter, if you took time to read it, you would see that all the charges -- the frivolous charges that is in this letter against Chris Bell were dismissed by the bipartisan committee. And all that the committee said was a mild warning about fund-raising activities and using government resources, a warning that is not a sanction in the House rules nor the rules of the Ethics Committee.
In this case, in this letter, the Ethics Committee has stated -- and I can't find the quote right now -- but it has stated unequivocally that Mr. Bell has violated the rules of the House. He has violated the rules of the Ethics Committee -- actual violations.
There has not been one story about Nancy Pelosi or Jim McDermott that I know of; certainly not on the front page of the New York Times or The Washington Post. And I bet you this story isn't going to find its way on the front pages of the New York Times or The Washington Post.
The point here is, is this is a concerted strategy announced in September a year ago by the Democrats that they were going to do these things. They were proud of it. And in March they even said they were going to neuter DeLay and announced it publicly, and yet it got little or no coverage.
DELAY: The point is I'm just demanding the same treatment that I have received for the last two and a half years in this case.
First, I ask that you write the facts. And the facts are that the Ethics Committee dismissed all these frivolous charges that they are now rebuking Chris Bell about.
The facts are, I have not been indicted in Austin, Texas. And the facts are the indictments that have been brought by this partisan D.A. in Austin, Texas, against three of my associates are frivolous. And if you'd spend any time at all and read the one-sentence indictment, you would see so and understand it.
This is a process of politics of personal destruction. It's quite obvious. And now the Ethics Committee has said so.
QUESTION: You've been admonished three times by the Ethics Committee. You were admonished in the (OFF-MIKE) and now this. Are you saying admonishment doesn't (OFF-MIKE)?
DELAY: Admonishment is no different than letters that we get from the Ethics Committee when all of us write to the Ethics Committee to make a decision as to an action we're about to take, whether it is within the rules or not.
Admonishment is not a sanction of the House rules, although you treat it like it is. It is not a sanction. And it is a mild warning about -- and if you read the letters -- about impression.
It has nothing to do with admonishment of violating the House rules. There has been no violation of the House rules. And all the committee said was, "You ought to take a look at when you go to fund- raisers when legislation is pending and you ought to take a look at how you interface with government entities in trying to answer questions for your constituents."
QUESTION: Mr. Leader, you singled out that the Democrat leader, Nancy Pelosi, by name here. First of all, do you see her as behind some of these -- what you see as attacks against you?
And second of all, how does this bode for the next Congress? Can you even work with Nancy Pelosi? You basically called her a criminal. You said she's violated the law.
DELAY: She has violated the law. It's in the facts. The facts are she violated federal law. Jim McDermott has violated federal law. And yet no one seems to run to write anything about that.
And the point is is that I don't know if she's in collusion or not. That's a question you ought to ask her.
But it's quite obvious to me, particularly when the NRCC, which she is the head of -- and she's the minority leader, she's responsible for everything that goes on in the Democrat Caucus -- DCCC, I'm sorry. DCCC.
(LAUGHTER)
Right. Yes.
(LAUGHTER)
QUESTION: Can you work with her?
DELAY: Of course, I can work with her. I can work with anyone that wants to help us with America's agenda.
And I have been focused on -- and, as Mr. Dreier said, we are finishing an incredibly productive 108th Congress. We're very proud of what we've been able to do. And we're looking forward to even a bolder 109th Congress. And we will work with anyone -- any willing coalition that we can put together to accomplish the people's business.
QUESTION: Why do you not (OFF-MIKE) against her?
DELAY: I have never participated in this politics of personal destruction. I think it's detrimental to the institution and to both Democrats and Republicans in the institution. It looks bad for all of us. And so I've never done it.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) violated federal law leading the other party, why not? Isn't that a case where you should go ahead and push a case?
DELAY: That's not for me to say. I don't like getting involved in those kinds of things. I like doing the people's business and accomplishing their agenda.
QUESTION: Do you think that Chris Bell should pay your court fees or your legal fees?
DELAY: Well, I think Mr. Bonilla and Mr. Carter have raised an interesting question.
If Mr. Bell is as ethical as he claims to be, then that would be the only right thing to do.
Thank you.
Tom DeLay, all he asks for is a level playing field, a fair shake.
--Josh Marshall
I know the most probable immediate beneficiary of such a change would likely be California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. But I'm coming around to the view -- expressed today by (foreing-born) former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright -- that naturalized American citizens should be eligible to run for president.
Certainly, a long period of citizenship should be required -- perhaps twenty or twenty-five years. But this is a nation of immigrants. And with the great surge of immigration in recent decades, this provision of the constitution leaves a substantial minority of American citizens permanently ineligible to serve in the highest office in the land. That is increasingly difficult to justify.
--Josh Marshall
Minnesota's Gil Gutknecht couldn't make it to the caucus meeting to vote on the DeLay Rule. But now he wants in to the Shays Handful after the fact. So says the local paper, the Post-Bulletin (subscription required).
But, according to the quote he gave the paper, he still manages to be for delay.
"I thought it was an enormous mistake to draw more attention to this issue. I think we are far better off dealing with it if and when ... I don't think it serves any constructive purpose to highlight an issue that may never become an issue. If it does become an issue we're going to have to deal with it, if it's Mr. DeLay or whoever."
--Josh Marshall
Kevin Drum and Mark Kleiman have a good point about Travis County DA Ronnie Earle.
--Josh Marshall
In case you hadn't noticed, the voice of inter-generational brainiac conservatism has spoken.
Jon Podhoretz in the New York Post: thumbs down on the DeLay Rule.
--Josh Marshall
Congresswoman Judy Biggert is a Republican member of the House Ethics Committee, which handed out those multiple admonishments to Rep. Tom DeLay. And there's been a lot of constituent interest in how she voted on the DeLay Rule. For the moment, according to constituent calls placed with her office this morning, Biggert seems to be hanging tough with the 'private vote' line, but leaving open the option of becoming a letter-writer.
--Josh Marshall
Late Word: New Jersey's Jim Saxton comes out of the 'private vote' category. As of this morning, he's a letter-writer.
However, constituents who've spoken this morning to members of Saxton's staff got the impression that the Saxton letter may say that it was a 'private vote' and not reveal how he voted.
We'll bring you more information on Saxton when we receive it; or perhaps we'll just need to come up with a more granular set of categories.
--Josh Marshall
Letter-writers no more!
It seems like three of those congressmen from Upstate New York could run but they could not hide.
According to this morning's Post-Standard, James Walsh, Sherry Boehlert and John McHugh each support the DeLay Rule, though Boelhert and McHugh managed not to attend the meeting where the vote took place.
Boelhert was at Bethesda Naval Medical Center getting a follow-up check-up tied to heart surgery from last September and McHugh was at another meeting. But when pressed on the matter, both said they supported it. James Walsh was there in the flesh and gave the thumbs up in person.
See the article for the details.
--Josh Marshall
It took our readers a while to get the scoop. But it seems that Pennsylvania's Melissa Hart was there when the Hammer needed her. She voted for the DeLay Rule, according to her staff.
--Josh Marshall
We were getting unconfirmed reports about this all yesterday afternoon. But now Rep. Heather Wilson of New Mexico makes it official. She says she was in the Shays Handful.
[ed. note: As you might imagine we've got a mound of emails and updates in from readers giving us information on their reps., new news reports, new awkward phone calls with congressional staffers, and so forth. (And please keep the updates coming.) But it will take us a bit of time to get through all the new information. Stay tuned; we'll be providing more updates through the day.]
--Josh Marshall
"Regardless of the outcome of this election, once all the votes are counted -- and they will be counted -- we will continue to challenge this administration. This is not a time for Democrats to retreat and accommodate extremists on critical principles -- it is a time to stand firm.
I will fight for a national standard for federal elections that has both transparency and accountability in our voting system. It's unacceptable in the United States that people still don't have full confidence in the integrity of the voting process.
I ask you to join me in this cause."
That's a passage from a message Sen. John Kerry will be sending out to supporters later this afternoon.
--Josh Marshall
On Deck for Tomorrow: Hardly any New York state Republican members of congress (beside Rep. Peter King) are willing to say whether they voted for the DeLay Rule.
--Josh Marshall
Red state editorials give the thumbs-down to the DeLay Rule: Springfield News-Leader, Roanoke Times, Charleston Gazette, Indianapolis Star.
--Josh Marshall
Alaska's sole member of the House, Don Young, voted for the DeLay Rule. Says Young: "Everybody says it's to protect Tom DeLay. That may be so. But it also protects anyone else from an elected attorney general, thank God Alaska doesn't have one, that can use their position as a bully pulpit and prosecute an elected official."
--Josh Marshall
Early on Thursday, staffers for Colorado's Bob Beauprez were telling constituents that the DeLay Rule vote was either a secret or that they didn't know how the congressman had voted. By mid-afternoon, though, Beauprez's office had come clean: He voted for the DeLay Rule.
--Josh Marshall
Even the Manchester Union Leader gives the DeLay Rule the thumbs down!
What will we tell the children?
--Josh Marshall
Just to show they're still on the case, the House Ethics Committee has now rebuked DeLay's accuser, outgoing Texas Rep. Chris Bell (D-TX). Bell's charges led to DeLay's earlier admonishment. But the Ethics Committee is now cracking down on him for using "innuendo and speculative assertions" in levelling his accusations.
Bell was redistricted out of his seat in last year's DeLay sponsored redistricting power-grab.
--Josh Marshall
Of all the members of the House Republican caucus, the guy who seems to have heard from the most TPM readers (or at least high on the list) is Greg Walden of Oregon.
Oregonians who called, but weren't from Walden's district, apparently got a bit of a tongue-lashing. But those who were his constituents got either a 'we don't know how he voted' or some version of 'the person who answers that question is away from their desk', etc. Pretty much all of Walden's constituents got the run-around and none of them got a straight answer. Lots of them got promises of calls back. But nobody seems to have gotten one.
There was apparently at least one rather hard-boiled staffer in one of the Walden offices, though. Because, in at least two cases, callers were told that in the staffer's opinion Walden almost certainly gave DeLay the nod.
--Josh Marshall
This is rich.
Florida's Adam Putnam voted for the DeLay Rule on Wednesday. And here in the local paper he's explaining how he stood up for principle by voting for the 'compromise' ...
U.S. Rep. Adam Putnam, R-Bartow, said he voted for the compromise in Republican House rules covering suspension of House GOP leaders, who are indicted in state courts, but that he would not have voted for the proposal that would have totally exempted committee chairs and other leaders from state indictments.The issue has arisen because of a potential Texas grand jury indictment on political corruption against Majority Leader Tom DeLay.
"It would have been to me rather hypocritical to have said that we are above state law, but not above federal law," Putnam said. "The initial package stated that House Republican leaders would be excluded from state courts, but not federal courts. But there is total agreement on the final package (with the compromise)," he said.
I'm glad he clarified<$NoAd$> that.
--Josh Marshall
Media Matters has a nice run-down here of how the media is uncritically picking up and running with the DeLay machine's claims that Ronnie Earle is pursuing a partisan agenda by investigating DeLay and his already-indicted associates. That unsubstantiated charge, of course, is their rationale for the DeLay Rule.
--Josh Marshall
We have a few more notations of loyal DeLay soldiers from Texas who not only supported the DeLay Rule, but happily said so publicly.
Not a surprise really. After all, he owns these guys.
The three are congressmen Joe Barton, Kevin Brady and John Carter.
--Josh Marshall
Putting together an itemized tally of who's in the Shays Handful, who's a letter-writer, who's down with DeLay is somewhat beyond our capacities here at TPM. But the folks at The Daily DeLay are doing it at their site. They have a running tally based on some of our reporting here. And they even have a handy explanation of the DeLay Rule lexicon we've been developing to explain who did what.
--Josh Marshall
We hadn't noticed, but the man who made it the Shays Handful, Rep. Chris Shays, put out this press release yesterday regarding his no vote on the DeLay Rule.
--Josh Marshall
We've been getting conflicting word throughout the day on how Minnesota's Mark Kennedy voted on the DeLay Rule.
This morning his staffers said they didn't know how he voted. Later he was a letter-writer. Later still we heard they were saying it was 'closed vote' and the 'no vote was taken' line.
The last TPM reader who got through to the congressman's office was told that the vote was by "unanimous consent", which should come as some surprise to those in the Shays Handful, who say they voted against it.
--Josh Marshall
Way, way, waaaayyy on the DeLay-low. That's Rep. John Sweeney of New York. So far we've had a half dozen TPM constituent-readers call and still no answer on how he voted on the DeLay Rule.
And while we're at it, Ohio's Steve Chabot? A letter-writer.
--Josh Marshall
A whole slew of different answers on how she voted on the DeLay Rule from Rep. Judy Biggert of Illinois.
--Josh Marshall
A little side note on the DeLay Rule vote.
If we can go by comments released by congressional offices, quite a substantial number of Republican members of congress happened to have stepped out of the room (to get food, go to the bathroom, attend to constituent business, etc.) right about the time they did the voice vote on the DeLay Rule.
Illinois's Tim Johnson, for instance, just couldn't make it. He was there for most of the meeting but had to step out for a "constituent meeting," according to TPM readers who've called his congressional office. He has no official position on the DeLay Rule at all.
Presumably they still had a quorum.
--Josh Marshall
Hmmmm... Big talk from the Iowa delegation.
After some initial hemming and hawing, Reps. Leach, Latham and Nussle have each told TPM readers they're safely esconced in the Shays Handful.
Only Rep. Steve King is still down as a letter-writer.
--Josh Marshall
Ohio's Pat Tiberi says he's in Shays Handful. California's Elton Gallegly says the same. Missouri's Kenny Hulshof too.
--Josh Marshall
Besides DeLay Rule letter-writers, there's also a growing list of members who simply tell their constituents it was a "private vote" and refuse to answer any questions.
High on that list is Vernon Ehlers of Michigan, Jim Saxton of New Jersey (though we have some conflicting word there), Howard Coble of North Carolina (though again his staff has made some conflicting statements), and Denny Rehberg of Montana.
For many offices, as you can see, there are overlapping and conflicting answers given out to different callers and constituents -- sometimes to a single constituent. So often it's 'it was a voice vote, we don't know how he voted, but it's not recorded, and it's private, and give us you're address and maybe we'll send a letter later.' So, as you can see, it sort of challanges TPMs categorizing abilities.
In the case of Denny Rehberg, one his staffers apparently went so far as to tell one TPM reader that GOP caucus rules forbade him from disclosing his vote on the DeLay Rule.
I guess that means Chris Shays and the whole of the Shays Handful is in a heap of trouble.
--Josh Marshall
A short note about the vote. The DeLay Rule vote, that is.
A number of congressmen (no congresswomen yet) are now telling their constituents that there's no question to answer because the DeLay Rule never came to a vote. (Staffers from Congressmen Tom Davis and Tom Feeney offices have both used this line, according to TPM readers.)
Nice try.
As we noted earlier, the rule was put to a voice-vote in the GOP caucus meeting. That means they asked for yeas and nays. And the yeas had it.
So it's true that there was no recorded vote. So there's no truly definitive way to know one way or another what a particular representative did unless they conspicuously said one thing or another and other members saw them say it.
All we really have to go on is how they say they voted.
Based on published accounts of members in the meeting, the number of 'nays' has been described as anything between a "handful" of members to between 30 and 50.
As we've already noted, it seems there are more members who now claim to have been in the Shays Handful than anyone saw voting 'nea' at the meeting. But what can you do?
In any case, the relevant point is that there was a vote. It wasn't recorded. There's no official tally. But everyone who was there was asked to say yea or nea. Why shouldn't they be willing tell their constituents what they said?
One final note: If your member of congress tells you there wasn't a vote, ask them whether those in the Shays Handful are lying when they say they voted against it.
--Josh Marshall
Arizona round-up ...
J.D. Hayworth -- Credit where credit is due. Hayworth is a real 'winger. But he's in the Shays Handful. He even spoke against it in the meeting. Say it loud, say it proud, J.D.!
Jim Kolbe -- Apparently a letter-writer.
Trent Franks -- I'm willing to give this guy props. He voted for the DeLay Rule. But he says so prominently right on the front of his website. He's not hiding.
No word yet on Reps. Renzi and Shadegg.
Late Update: We've now gotten word back on Rep. John Shadegg. He's taking the 'private vote' line.
--Josh Marshall