John Boehner

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the House voted to override a bill that the President vetoed, except that it wasn't the bill that the House and Senate had passed. And rather than stop, try to determine what the problem was and then to work toward an agreement as to how we proceed, it didn't happen. As a result, we are now stuck in this quagmire of trying to determine how best to get this bill enacted into law. Yet, once again, instead of stopping, sitting down and working in a bipartisan way to understand what happened and how we ought to resolve this, the majority is continuing to just move vehicles to the Senate, hoping that they can sort it out. Now, my colleague and friend from Minnesota says that this 1,768-page bill is identical, with exceptions, to the bill that the House passed. If I could ask the gentleman from Minnesota, did you read all 1,768 pages of this?

Mr. BOEHNER. Did anybody read all 1,768 pages of this?

Mr. BOEHNER. Reclaiming my time, this bill, 1,768 pages, was introduced less than 1 hour ago. There are no Members who have read this. I doubt there is any staff that has read all of this, because you couldn't possibly have read all of this over the course of the last hour. 1,768 pages, $300 billion over the next 5 years, $600 billion over the next 10 years. Yet we are going to expect Members to come down here and cast a vote on this, not knowing what is in here. We thought that when we passed the farm bill, it was the bill that passed the House and the Senate. The President thought the bill sent to him was the bill that the House and Senate passed. We thought it was the bill the House and Senate passed. But, guess what? It wasn't. Now we are being asked to vote on a 1,768-page bill that spends nearly $300 billion over the next 5 years, we have had the bill for less than an hour, and everybody is hoping, hoping, it is the same bill that we passed, except with some enrolling corrections. I think that is a real stretch. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the ranking Republican on the House Agriculture Committee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. BOEHNER. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHNER. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. BOEHNER. I would just add, what has happened here raises serious constitutional questions, very serious. I don't know how we can proceed with the override as it occurred, nor do I think we should proceed with some attempt to fix it until such time as we all understand what happened, what are the precedents of the House, and how do we move forward. As a result, I really believe that there ought to be a motion, I may make the motion, to vacate the vote that has occurred until we all understand better about what it is that we are dealing with.

Mr. BOEHNER. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. BOEHNER. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. BOEHNER. If I could yield to my colleague from Missouri.

Mr. BOEHNER. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. BOEHNER. Let me yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. BOEHNER. I would be happy to yield to the majority leader.

Mr. BOEHNER. Reclaiming my time, we may have transported to the President a portion of the bill that passed the House and Senate, but we did not send to the President, apparently, the farm bill conference report as passed by the House and the Senate. I think what's of grave concern to me is, yes, I understand that mistakes do happen in this process, but before the consideration of the override debate and vote, we were aware of the problem. And I just think that in deference to all Members, we could have waited before consideration of the override so that all the Members would understand just what we're dealing with and the problems that are contained therein. I just think that in the rush to move this override vote, we don't know what precedents of the House we may have stepped on and what constitutional problems that we may have. I would remind my colleague that there was a very small mistake made in the Deficit Reduction Act several years ago that's been the subject of a lawsuit and privileged resolutions and moral outrage from some of my friends on the other side of the aisle, which, frankly, the Deficit Reduction Act error pales in comparison to what we have here. So I would ask my colleague, I think we need to get to the bottom of what happened. I don't know that the override that we just cast--we voted to override a bill that had never been considered by the House or the Senate, and I don't know how that is constitutional. I would be happy to yield to my friend.

Mr. BOEHNER. Reclaiming my time, in terms of how this problem gets fixed, is there some consideration for how we fix this error?

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, we just finished a vote several minutes ago on the override of the farm bill, except that the override vote occurred on a bill that had never been considered by the House or the Senate, since the bill that we voted to override apparently is missing one title of the bill--or the conference report--that passed the House and the Senate. I am concerned about the procedures, the process, and the constitutionality of what we've just done. I would like to ask the majority leader if he can help myself and the other Members understand just what are we dealing with here.

Mr. BOEHNER. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Reclaiming my time, I don't know whether the President signed the bill that included title III or not. I don't know where title III fell from the bill. That's the point I'm making. Until there are answers as to what did happen, how we proceed is critically important to the constitutionality of the process that we're engaged in here.

Mr. BOEHNER. I appreciate my colleague for yielding, and I'm not going to talk about the farm bill. I'm a little concerned and have serious doubts about the process that we're using to bring this bill considering that the bill that the President vetoed is not the bill that the Members are being asked to override. Remember, there were 12 titles in the farm bill that we sent to the President. The bill that we have, that we're overriding, contains 11 titles. Title III of the bill is missing. Now, the reason I rise is because I have got doubts about the process that we're engaged in, and I have doubts about the constitutionality of what it is that we're doing. And people were in such a hurry to bring this bill up here to the floor that no one would take the time to consider what is it that we're doing; is it constitutional, and should we proceed under the conditions we find ourselves. We don't know why title III of the bill that we sent to the President is missing in the document that we're considering right now. So it is not just me as a Member. I think there are other Members on both sides of the aisle that are wondering should we proceed with this and is what we're doing constitutional, is it breaking precedent with what we've done in the past. I would just ask my colleagues, and especially ask the majority, why we couldn't take some time to understand what happened in this process, why title III isn't included in the bill that we're moving to override. And so until there are answers to this, I would suggest to the majority that we ought to consider suspending activity on this until such time as we know we have answers to the questions that Members on both sides are going to have. I would be happy to yield to my friend.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I'm proud to have introduced this legislation which marks the 35th anniversary of Operation Homecoming, and honors all Americans held prisoner of war in Vietnam. On February 12, 1973, the first wave of the longest held POWs from Vietnam left Hanoi for their first taste of freedom, dubbed Operation Homecoming. Our colleague and my friend Sam Johnson was one of the men who flew out of Hanoi after nearly 7 years in captivity. For me and any other American watching, Sam's return, and the return of all those heroes serving in Vietnam, was a bittersweet moment. Yet it was a moment that we must never forget because of what they did to defend the cause of freedom. This resolution is just one more way for Congress and for our Nation to thank those who were held prisoner of war in Vietnam. And on a personal note, it gives me a chance to thank Sam, once again, for his service and his friendship. Mr. Speaker, America owes our Vietnam POWs and all of those who serve a debt of gratitude, and it is only fitting that Congress today should recognize their heroic sacrifices today and every day.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Let me thank my colleague for yielding and ask my colleagues what is it that we are doing here? We got 1 week before we break for the Memorial Day recess. Admiral Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, has said we have to have the funding for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. We know that come early June, layoff notices go out to contract employees who work at the Pentagon. Why? Because we can't seem to get this bill finished. And why can't we get it finished? Because we have a bill in front of us that has all types of unrelated spending beyond what is needed to fund our troops. The gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) earlier this week, introduced a clean troop funding bill, a bill that the President called for with the changes that were made up here to make sure that we got funding to the troops as quickly as possible. That is the bill that ought to be on the floor today, not a bill that handcuffs our generals, starves our troops and puts them in a position where they can't succeed in their mission in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill also includes a $54 billion tax hike on small businesses around the country. And if there is a time when we don't need to be raising taxes on small businesses, it is now. They are the engine of new job growth in our country. And what are we going to do? We are going to put more taxes on them. I think that what we are doing here is that we are playing political games on the backs of our troops. You know it. All this bill is going to do is delay the process for weeks and weeks and weeks while we play political games because you know the President is not going to sign this bill. Why don't we move Mr. Lewis' bill? We can do it today. We can do it early next week. It is a clean troop funding bill that takes care of our troops and honors them on the eve of Memorial Day instead of playing political games on their backs.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Let me thank my colleague for yielding. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I have been around the House Agriculture Committee for nearly 18 years. The chairman and I came together. We are good friends, and so is the ranking Republican, Mr. Goodlatte. And I know they have worked hard to produce this bill. But clearly, most Americans think that Washington is broken. And this farm bill frankly is another example of that. I know there is some reform in this bill. But when you begin to step back and look at the bill, we didn't get anywhere near the reform that I think most Americans would expect. At a time when we have got the highest commodity prices that we have seen in a generation, you would think that we would take a slightly different approach to the farm bill. But unfortunately, because of the process, because of the negotiations, it didn't happen. I just want to point out what I would describe as the most egregious part of this. I, or one of my designees, will have a motion to recommit this conference report. And it is no secret that politicians have traditionally used and abused the farm bill for their own pet projects. There are three pet projects in this bill that I am going to single out in my motion to recommit. One, it would strip out the ``Trail to Nowhere,'' a land swap that was airdropped into the bill by the senior Senator from Vermont. The language would require the U.S. Forest Service to sell portions of the Green Mountain National Forest exclusively to Vermont's Bromley Ski Resort. And believe it or not, to accommodate this obscure demand, portions of the Appalachian National Scenic Trail may have to be moved. They are actually going to move the Appalachian Scenic Trail, possibly have to move it, because we are going to sell this land to a ski resort. I don't think the taxpayers ought to have to bankroll this boondoggle. Secondly, our motion will strip out a $170 million earmark for the salmon industry that was airdropped into this bill in secret. The provision was never considered in the House. It was never considered in the Senate. One hundred seventy million dollars to bail out salmon fisheries. Now you should also note that after Hurricane Katrina, when the entire gulf coast fishing industry was annihilated, they actually only got $126 million from the Federal Government to fix their fisheries. I don't think taxpayers ought to be required to put up the money for an airdropped earmark that was brought into this bill never having been considered in either body. Finally, our proposal would strip out a $250 million earmark secured by the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, the gentleman from Montana. This earmark, incredibly enough, is targeted for forests to house fish. Yes. We are going to target a forest that houses fish, incredibly, what we would call ``forest fish.'' Only one forest in the country happens to have fish in it. And it just happens to be based in Montana, located in Montana where the Senator is from. I don't think the taxpayers ought to have to pay $250 million to take care of forest fish. Listen, the American people are struggling with the high cost of living, whether it is the cost of gasoline, the cost of food, trying to make sure that they have got health care, concerned about whether they have a job tomorrow or will be able to afford their home mortgage. And here we are moving a farm bill that has earmarks in it that just don't pass the straight-face test. And so I would ask my colleagues, if you think that this is a wise use of taxpayer funds, you can go ahead and vote against this motion to recommit. But I would invite my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, if you think that taxpayer funds could be spent more wisely, vote for the motion to recommit, and let's make this bill a better bill. We can do better.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I know this has been a difficult several days, but I just want to remind everyone that there are some serious process fouls that are going on. And the majority leader, the Speaker, members of the majority during 2005 and 2006 made significant efforts to be critical of the then-majority, some of it, frankly, earned. But what is happening here, the process that's being used for the big housing bill, the process that's being discussed for the supplemental spending bill closes the minority out of any amendments and any motion to recommit. I just hope that the majority leader and the members of the majority understand, and I think many of you who have been here for some time understand clearly, the grievance that we have. We don't have many ways to express our grievance on the housing bills because we have no amendment that we can offer. We have no substitute that we're allowed to offer, no motion to recommit. As a result, all we're asking for is to be treated fairly. The gentleman will know, and other members of the majority and minority will remember, that in 1994 when we took the majority, some of our leaders wanted to treat the minority the way they had been treated. I argued to no end that we should treat the minority the way that we had asked to be treated when we were in the minority. I didn't always win, I'll be the first one to admit that, but I would suggest that given the statements that have been made in 2005 and 2006 about how the then-minority was treated, all I would suggest to you is just treat us the way you asked to be treated, simple as that.