Greg Abbott discussed protecting military bases in Texas and more with Joe Pags on WOAI.
ATTORNEY GENERAL GREG ABBOTT: Hey, Joe. I’m doing great. And yourself?
JOE PAGS: You know it’s always a pleasure. I’m doing okay. Let’s get right to the most important reason for the call. What is your favorite remedy for mountain cedar? Because my allergies are killing me.
GENERAL ABBOTT: Well, if I had the remedy for that I’d be a billionaire right now.
PAGS: I want to know who the jerk was years ago that brought this non-indigenous juniper to our area and it ruins us every year. My goodness, it’s crazy. Alright, let’s get into the real stuff here. I got a notification via e-mail the other day that you are making some proposals that would save or protect our soldiers and our bases here in Texas. First question I have to have on that issue is, are they in trouble? Is there something going on that I don’t know about?
GENERAL ABBOTT: Well yeah there’s several things that bases across the country, but also in Texas, are in trouble. Here are the two catalysts that are causing the problem. One of course is that the Obama Administration has put our military on the chopping block. And so we’re looking at possible cuts and cutbacks in military spending. But second, the second trigger is we have another round of Base Realignment and Closure, also known as BRAC that is coming up in 2017. The key point here and that is that next round of Base Realignment and Closure is going to be taking place during the tenure of the next elected Governor in the state of Texas. Here in Texas, we have 15 military bases. Some of which, frankly, back in the time of the last BRAC study were underperforming. And part of this is to ensure that we get all of our bases up to top notch quality status so that the military bases in Texas will not be on Barack Obama’s military chopping block.
PAGS: It is Attorney General Greg Abbott also a candidate for Governor of the great state of Texas. What authority does the Governor have, in any state, when the federal government, that of course is funding through our taxpayer money the military. What can a Governor do to stop the closing of a base through the BRAC program or any other thing?
GENERAL ABBOTT: Right, and that’s another reason why this is necessary. Because Governors in other states, as we speak, are working to get their bases and their base communities organized. This is that state-to-state competition that Governor Perry has talked about so often. But what we can do, and what I’m suggesting that we do, is that we create in the office of Governor itself a Texas Military Preparedness Commission that would have as the leader of it a military officer that would put together a team to come up with the strategies that we need to make sure we can prevent our bases in Texas from being closed.
PAGS: In other words, we would fund them if the federal government decided to take the funding away.
GENERAL ABBOTT: No, instead what we would do is…there are certain things that we can do to work with the committee and work with military base leaders to come up with a plan to basically enhance the infrastructure around the military base, enhance job training, educational opportunities…things like that will ensure that our military base communities are going to be rated strongly by the standards that are used by the BRAC commission to figure out bases to close and which to leave open.
PAGS: Alright, in other words we would raise the standards to the point to where the BRAC commissions say we need to close some bases, but let’s not screw with the ones in Texas because they’re all performing really well.
GENERAL ABBOTT: Exactly right.
PAGS: Alright it’s Greg Abbott, our Attorney General. I wanted to ask you about a couple of other things since I have you on the line. But before I move on, part of what you’re talking about is people going to sign on the dotted line, saying I will put my life on the line for the Constitution of the United States of America. And in return, the federal government said we’d give you this pension, this for medical, we’ll give you this for retirement, we promise you this for education. What authority does the federal government have to now say, after they’ve already joined, because they’re not talking about grandfathering people in. They’re talking about changing people as they’ve been enlisted years. What authority do they have to change what somebody agreed to…when he or she agreed to sign on the dotted in line? I don’t get how they can do that.
GENERAL ABBOTT: Well, Joe this is reprehensible. We’re talking about the people who have put their lives on the line. These are American heroes who have fought for the freedoms that we all enjoy. The least that we can do is to ensure that they and their families are taken care of in ways that honor their service to this country and that are representative of the fact that we live every single day with the freedoms protected by our military men and women. So we need to make sure that the country stays true to its promise to the men and women who served this country and provide them with what was promised to them and live up to our commitment.
PAGS: It would be like me signing my contract here with Clear Channel and having them say, after a couple of months, you know? We were kidding about how much we were going to pay you or how much is going to go into your 401K. We’re really going to do this. And they would have no leg to stand on in contract court. How can the government do that? I mean is this illegal? Is there any reasonable course for a military member?
GENERAL ABBOTT: There are two issues to look at. One is the legality. Is it even legal for basically them to renege but also, more deeply is what we’ll call the public contract. The contract that we Americans have with our military, we need to go up to that standard to honor and support the men and women who support this country.
PAGS: If they want to change that before the people who sign up tomorrow, I get it. Before you sign, you know the provisions, you know it’s going to work. But if I sign up two years ago, don’t try to change it now. That’s just under handed. So that’s where I am. Attorney General Eric Holder, federal Attorney General, seems to pick and choose as he goes which laws he will enforce, which laws he won’t enforce. He didn’t go up to the New Black Panther Party for voter intimidation when there’s video of them actually intimidating voters. He doesn’t want to enforce any immigration laws whatsoever. Eh, come on, they’re good people who help our economy. In fast and furious, he wouldn’t even answer any questions about it in a sensible, comprehensible way. Now, he’s going after Texas again. He just said that the Texas law that Governor Perry pushed for and that our Legislature in the state of Texas pushed for that would require drug testing before you can get on unemployment benefits, well we’re just not going to enforce it. That’s unenforcible. A: Does the Attorney General have the authority to make that decision on the state level law? And B: Is this just the next attack by the federal government on our state?
GENERAL ABBOTT: The answer is no, they do not have the authority to come in and tell the state how to operate its own laws. And B: This is just going to be the latest iteration. As you may know, the count now is up to 33 of the lawsuits that I’ve had with the federal government. And most recently, I filed a lawsuit against them just a couple of months ago because they were using practices like that. What they were actually doing is they were forcing both the state of Texas and any private employer in the state of Texas to hire felons even if they didn’t want to hire felons. That’s just nonsensical, and so I said that the state of Texas is not going to be required to hire felons, and what you’re talking about is the newest way in which the federal government is trying to tell the state of Texas how to run the state. And, by golly, we’re going to go ahead and force Texas state law the way it was written, and if they don’t like it, then Eric Holder can file a lawsuit against me, but Texas law is Texas law, and the federal government does not have the authority to tell the state of Texas how to run its own state law.
PAGS: Well, with the whole voter ID thing, they tried to use, well, they did use the Voting Rights Act of 1965 as the authority the feds have in oversight. Of course, the federal court system said no, you don’t have that authority anymore, and that part doesn’t matter anymore, and of course, they’re going to have the same law that Indiana has. When it comes to this thing on February first, are you telling me that this law will be enforced starting February 1st, that those who seek unemployment benefits, unemployment pay will have to take a drug test? We’re still going to be able to do that in Texas even though he made this announcement today?
GENERAL ABBOTT: Our plan is to still enforce the law. I believe the law is still enforceable, and unless and until the court says otherwise, I think the state of Texas should continue to enforce the law.
PAGS: One last issue, it’s Attorney General Greg Abbott, also candidate for governor of the great state of Texas. By the way, how’s that going? You must be traveling like crazy. I saw you at some school the other day, then you’re at the other part of the state. Is that sort of schedule working out okay for you while still being the attorney general? It’s got to be tough while campaigning, right?
GENERAL ABBOTT: I can roll and chew gum at the same time, and so it’s going great. It does give me the opportunity to connect with the people that I currently serve and will hopefully continue to serve in the future, whether they be school teachers or business owners or hard workers here in the state of Texas, but it is a great enjoyment to be able to travel around the state and meet with so many great Texans.
PAGS: I only have about a minute, so there are two more topics I want to talk about. I’m only going to get to one. It’s pretty intricate. You and I have talked about it a lot, the 20-weeks gestation. Make a decision before you get to 20 weeks, before you have an abortion, and make sure that the doctor that’s providing the abortion has a connection to a surgical center. That law seems to make sense to me, but there was a federal judge who just decided on a similar law in another state, and I can’t think of which state it was. They just made the decision that that is a violation of the constitutional rights of the woman’s right to privacy, to have the abortion to try to tell her she can have it if it’s available in her state after a certain gestation. Any thoughts on that, and do you think the next stop is going to be Texas?
GENERAL ABBOTT: Well, a couple of things. One is, remember when you say 20-weeks, what you’re really talking about is five months.
PAGS: Right. You can’t decide in 5 months if you want to have an abortion. Doesn’t make any sense.
GENERAL ABBOTT: It ensures that in 5 months, probably the most challenging decision a woman will make in her life. And also, it’s an issue, the reason why these laws have come up is because of evince showing that after 5 moths, it shows that the child in the womb can feel pain at the time, and whether it would be cruel and unusual to inflict pain upon a child in a womb. So the issue is playing out in court in other states. It’s also playing out in the state of Texas. We’re involved in defending what’s known as HB 2. We had the oral arguments in the federal court of appeals earlier this month. And we will get our ruling, and I have no doubt that all these cases are going to end up in the United States Supreme Court.
PAGS: Well, I was under the impression that the Supreme Court actually said that those laws are constitutional.
GENERAL ABBOTT: I don’t think the Supreme Court has been clear about this. What the Supreme Court did, there was a challenge that was brought up to them…
PAGS: I believe it was brought by Arizona. Arizona tried to appeal to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court said we’re not going to hear it.
GENERAL ABBOTT: Exactly. By not hearing, did not mean the court resolved it. The high court level left it unresolved. The issue has not been spoken on by the high court, only by a regional court. And so that regional law does not apply in the state of Texas. And we’ll see what happens in the Texas case, but there’s so many of these that are bubbling up around the country. One of them will be taken by the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court will have to decide it.
PAGS: And you feel confident that the decision will be with the fact that this unborn child can feel pain, and that would literally will be unconstitutional to the unborn child and be cruel and unusual. I mean, I believe the Eighth Amendment would cover that if, in fact, you call the unborn child, a person, which of course we haven’t since 1972 or whatever it is.
GENERAL ABBOTT: And that will be one of the battlegrounds for this issue as it plays out. The other, if you go back to Roe v. Wade itself, Roe v. Wade made clear that a state has a legitimate interest in ensuring the health and safety and welfare of the mother. And one thing the state did was to ensure the safety standards because we saw the devastation of what happened to women in Philadelphia and some other places, even here in Texas. And we need to make sure that if medical procedures are going to be provided, they will be provided in a safe way that people’s safety is not harmed.
PAGS: It seems to make sense to me, but then again, Wendy Davis didn’t know who Curtis Gosnell was, or Kermit Gosnell, whatever his name was, she didn’t know who he was, never heard the story, so that’ll be interesting if you guys ever get down to where you debate on stuff like this. Greg, we always appreciate it. Next time you’re in town, let’s stop by, okay?
GENERAL ABBOTT: I’ll do it. Sounds great, Joe. Take care.