John Boehner

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. No amendments, no substitutes, no motions to recommit. Last night, we get rid of all the Special Orders. At some point, the majority has an obligation to treat the minority with respect. It is not happening, and that's why we're going to continue to wage this fight to be heard on this floor and represent nearly half of the American people that we're here to represent.

Mr. BOEHNER. With all due respect, the minority in this House has a right to be heard.

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.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize the retirement of James ``Choppy'' Saunders, a leading citizen of Middletown, Ohio and to express my appreciation for his dedication and commitment to public service. Since 1986 Choppy has given freely of his time and talents to Middfest International and for that I offer him my utmost congratulations and thanks. Choppy's love for his community goes far beyond his involvement with Middfest and his 17 years as its General Chairman. He has served on many boards and commissions. He is the past President and First Vice- President of the Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Planning Authority and Regional Council of Governments, President of the Middletown Board of Health, President of the Middletown Area Chamber of Commerce, Board Member of the Middletown Area Neediest Youth and of course was the first African American elected to the Middletown City Commission. Choppy's record--as a committed community man and as a good neighbor helping those in need--will leave an enduring legacy in Middletown. His leadership will be missed, but the footprint he has left will inspire many to emulate his good works. Choppy, I offer my congratulations and gratitude for your long and successful career in public service. I wish you well in your retirement, and I hope you continue to achieve happiness and success wherever your life journey may lead you.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Let me thank my colleague from Florida for yielding. Mr. Speaker, it's my honor to join Speaker Pelosi in celebrating the 60th anniversary of the State of Israel. This is just the first opportunity for us to honor the foundation of the Jewish State leading up to its anniversary on May 14. After 60 years, Israel may not be our oldest ally, but there is no doubt that it's among our most treasured. Since its establishment 6 decades ago, Israel has been a pillar of strength, integrity, freedom and, above all else, friendship. They're not simply allies by chance. Our friendship has flourished over the last 60 years because we share the same values. First and foremost, we recognize that we would not exist if not for the grace and power of God. Faith forms our Nation's very foundation and is reflected in everything we do. We value liberty, and recognize how precious it is in a world where it's not only rare, but often under attack. And we recognize the responsibility we have to defend our freedom. That's why we have stood beside our Israeli allies for the past six decades and why we are taking the fight to those committed to destroying the Jewish state and, for that matter, destroying us. Mr. Speaker, the bonds of trust between Israel and America have never been stronger or more important than they are right now. Our Nation will stand firmly beside our Israeli friends over the next 60 years just as we've done over the last 60. And with a shared faith in God, a respect for liberty, and a commitment to its defense, our friendship will only grow deeper. May God bless the Jewish State of Israel on this anniversary and all of those that will follow.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize the grand opening of the Treaty Room and the Crossroads of Destiny Exhibit at the Garst Museum in Greenville, Ohio One of most significant historical moments in Darke County was the signing of the Treaty of Greene Ville, which ended forty years of conflict over the upper Ohio Valley and opened the door for western settlement, leading to Ohio's statehood. This exhibit tells the story of life on the frontier: war, resolution, loss, progress and the growth of a nation. While Darke County is no longer the Western edge of the United States, its citizens retain the finest qualities of frontier settlers: generous hearts, a zeal for public service and the passionate patriotism that General Anthony Wayne, General William Henry Harrison, Meriwether Lewis and William Clark exhibited more than two centuries ago. It is my pleasure to congratulate The Garst Museum, the Darke County Historical Society and the citizens of Darke County on the grand opening of this new exhibit.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Let me thank my colleague from California for yielding, and say, Mr. Speaker, and to my colleagues, that our economy is struggling. Families and businesses are dealing with the rising cost of living, and certainly the job market has slowed. At a time like this we should be working together. And as the Speaker said, she and I came together and our Members came together on both sides of the aisle earlier this year to pass an economic growth package. The checks will be going out to Americans here beginning in the middle of May and will occur, continue to go on through the end of July. These checks, again, are not out in the marketplace. We hope they'll be out there soon, and we hope it will help revive our struggling economy. But the action that's being taken here today is going to do nothing more than to hurt American businesses and American workers. The Speaker earlier went on about the fact that the typical protocol here was not followed; that the President send this bill to the Congress without the approval of the Speaker of the House. Now I think it's time to set the record straight on exactly what has occurred. There have been hundreds and hundreds of meetings over the last 15 months trying to come to an agreement on how this bill shall be considered. There have been changes made. There have been side agreements that have come forth as a result of this. And over the course of the last six or eight weeks, there have been serious conversations between the administration and the Speaker of the House about the consideration of the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. And the reason this bill was sent up here this week was because, not one time over these 6 weeks, has the Speaker agreed or made a commitment to the administration that this bill will be considered this year. The President's been willing to work with the Congress. The conversations, again, have gone on for 15 months. But not one time during that 15 months was there ever a commitment by the Democrat majority to bring this bill to the floor for a vote in the House. I don't think the President had any choice but to bring, to send that free trade agreement to the Congress and force Congress to act. And so what do we do? We don't go try to work to see if we can get the votes. We don't try, in a bipartisan way, to move this agreement. No, we're going to go in and cheat. We're going to change the rules under which the consideration of this free trade agreement should operate between the House and the Senate. We're not even going to give it a chance. And anybody that thinks that well, we're just going to push this off for a couple of months, that is nonsense. This vote today is a vote to kill the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, nothing more and nothing less. The Speaker points out, well, the President did this and, frankly, there are other priorities in the House. Let me tell you what. When we passed the Andean Trade Preferences Act earlier this year, virtually everything that comes from Colombia to the United States comes here duty-free. The Colombian Free Trade Agreement would allow U.S. manufacturers, and U.S. workers who produce these goods, to send our goods to Colombia virtually tariff-free. We're doing nothing here but hurting American workers and American businesses. Why? I think the Speaker made it very clear. This action today is nothing short of political blackmail. The Speaker made it clear that she has her agenda. She wants the President to deal with her on her agenda, and we're not going to move this bill until the President deals with her agenda. That is not the way to deal with our trading partners around the world. I've listened to candidates that are running for President, especially candidates on the Democrat side, who have talked about the fact that the United States needs to be more willing to engage the rest of the world, that we need to listen, that we need to reach out to countries around the world. There's probably no place that's more important for us to reach out than South America. Here we have a country in South America that's doing their best to fight off terrorists in their own country. A message that we could send, not only to Colombia, but to the rest of South America that we want to engage in them, exactly as many of these contenders for the Democrat nomination, points that they have made. What does this say to Colombia? What does it say to South America? And what does it say about free and fair trade around the world? This is a precipitous step in the wrong direction. We're sending a very bad message for our partners around the world, all in the name of election-year politics. I think that it's regrettable, it's despicable. If we're going to have a vote here, why don't we put the Colombian free trade bill up for a vote and let the House work its will on that bill, because the fact is, I think it would pass.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize Mr. Owen Hall, a leading citizen of Mercer County, and to express my appreciation for his dedication and commitment to public service. For 18 years, Mr. Hall has contributed his time and talents in leading the Mercer County Republican Party, and for this, I offer him my utmost congratulations and thanks. However, Owen's love of public service is not confined to the political world. Owen is a man committed to his community, serving on many boards and commissions. He is the Past President of the Ohio Association of Realtors, Past President of the National Realtors Land institute, member of the Ohio Auctioneers Hall of Fame, Director of the Lake Development Corporation, Past President of the Ohio Churches of God Youth Advance, lifetime member of the Church of God, and Past President of the church council. Owen's record--as a committed community man, a church leader, and as a good neighbor helping those in need--will leave an enduring legacy in Mercer County. His leadership will be missed, but the footprint he has left will inspire many to emulate his good works. Owen, I offer my congratulations and gratitude for your long and successful career in public service. I wish you well in your future retirement, and I hope you continue to achieve happiness and success wherever your life journey may lead you.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate and recognize my hometown school system, the Lakota School District in West Chester and Liberty Township, Ohio, on its 50th Anniversary. From the humble beginnings as the Liberty-Union School District in 1957 with an enrollment of just 1,700 students it would have been hard to predict the extraordinary growth and success of the district. Today the Lakota School District covers nearly 70 square miles, two townships, eight postal zones and nearly 100,000 people. It is home to two high schools, a freshman school, four junior schools, ten elementary schools, four early childhood schools and more than 18,000 students. Even with the growth from a small rural district into the seventh largest district in Ohio the success of Lakota schools has not been impeded. The Lakota School District is the largest district in Ohio to receive an ``Excellent'' rating for six consecutive years. In 2006-2007 the district met 29 of 30 state indicators, graduated more than 96 percent of its students and saw 90 percent of high school student's matriculate to college all while per pupil spending stayed well below the state average. But facts and figures only tell part of the story. It is fitting that this fine school district bears the word ``Lakota,'' a Native American word meaning unity and togetherness. Throughout the years the achievements of Lakota schools have been driven by the dedication and commitment of the entire Lakota community. Together, through a unified vision, the administrators, teachers, parents, students and citizens have made the Lakota School District a pillar of education and a foundation for community growth. Each and every person who has attended, taught, worked or simply lived in the district has played a role in its success. I'm proud to represent the Lakota School District in our nation's Capitol. I'm proud my children attended Lakota schools, and I'm proud of what has been achieved and what I know will be achieved. I congratulate the Lakota School District on a spectacular fifty years and I know another extraordinary fifty are still to come.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Let me thank my colleague from Washington for yielding. My colleagues, several years ago when the current Speaker, Speaker Pelosi, had my job as the minority leader, she said that bills should generally come to the floor under a fair and open process with amendments allowed and substitutes allowed. And yet here we are today once again violating the very words that she said how the minority should be treated by bringing a bill to the floor, a Senate bill with amendments crafted by the House with no opportunity for amendments, no opportunity for substitutes. And no opportunity to vote straight up or down on the bipartisan bill that came over from the Senate. I think that what we have seen here is just a pattern of we are for this, we create rules that allow the minority the opportunity to be fairly heard, and yet they are routinely violated. And so the only way we can have a straight up-or-down vote on the Senate bill that passed the Senate 68-29, the only way we can have a vote on that is to defeat the previous question. Why do we want to deny the Members of the House to vote on the bipartisan Senate bill? I can probably tell you, that's because it would pass. A majority of the Members of the House of Representatives are in favor of the Senate bill. But House leaders are standing in the way of the opportunity for House Members to actually vote on that bill. We can get into the merits of the changes that were made to the Senate bill that are being debated here. I think they handcuff our intelligence officials. I think that they open up a wide avenue for trial lawyers to hold communication companies at bay and threaten their very willingness to help us in this very serious business of tracking down those who would want to do Americans harm. And so I would ask my colleagues to defeat the previous question. Let's have a chance to vote on the bipartisan Senate bill and let's allow the House to work its will.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague from Wisconsin for yielding and congratulate him and the Republican members of the Budget Committee for a job well done in putting this budget together. I also want to thank our colleague from South Carolina, Mr. Spratt, the chairman of the committee for their budget. Although I'll be critical of it, still, the gentleman did his work, and the House is considering the budget at the time of the year the House should be considering its budget, in March, and in early March, which has not always happened. When we think about our budgets, it's not as complicated as people think. It's about revenue coming into the Federal Government and revenue going out of the Federal Government to provide benefits for the American people. And it's not just about numbers for this year. It's about numbers for next year and over the next 5 or 10 years that we need to look at so that there is a balance between revenues and expenses. Clearly, over the last 40 years, there's been a big imbalance between what goes out and what comes in. And the fact is that in 36 of those 40 years, the Federal Government has run a deficit, at least 36. I think 36 of the 40 years we've run a deficit. We balanced the budget in the late 1990s when Republicans controlled the Congress by holding the line on spending while revenues to the Federal Government were growing in a healthy economy, held the line on spending at or near the rate of inflation, and revenues surpassed expenses for the first time in some almost 30 years. But here we are again, back in a situation where we're spending more than what's coming in, mostly as a result of the attacks of 9/11, the aftershocks to our economy. But if you look at the revenue over the last 5 years, revenues have grown at 11 percent annually in each of the last 4 years, going back through 2006. And even in 2007, revenues to the Federal Government grew, estimated to grow at about 8 to 9 percent. And so revenue growth to the Federal Government, I think, has been healthy since we reduced taxes on capital gains and dividends, per child tax credit, and relief for the marriage penalty back in 2001 and 2003. And so you can see that reducing tax rates doesn't mean less revenue to the Federal Government. Matter of fact, you can look back over the last 27 years, other than a couple of small exceptions, there has been a significant effort to lower tax rates, income tax rates, capital gain tax rates; and as a result, there has been more economic activity in our country, more people employed in our country, and more people paying taxes. And so if you look at the marginal tax rates today as compared to 1980, you see that those tax rates are significantly lower. Yet the Federal revenue, the taxes that American families pay, continues to come into Washington at very high levels of growth on an annual basis I would argue that making the capital gains tax rate permanent, making the rate on dividends permanent, would give more people reasons to invest in America's economy allowing those rates of growth in revenue to the Federal Government to continue. And so Washington doesn't have a revenue problem. Washington has a spending problem. And when you look at the Washington spending problems, it really rolls down to several things: one is controlling the growth of domestic discretionary spending. I think, by and large, if you look at the budgets that we've seen over the last 15 years, we've done a fairly good job of controlling domestic discretionary programs and the spending that goes there. There are some exceptions, and there is certainly some room to eliminate some of what I would call wasteful Washington spending. But if you look at the increases, most of it has gone into the area of defense. The real problem that we have is that we continue to have an older America. The number of Americans over 65 continues to grow and will grow significantly as I and other baby boomers begin to retire. And so when you look at the problem today in terms of the spending problem, it is in the entitlement area. And the underlying budget that the majority has put forward does nothing to reform entitlement spending. I came here in 1990 because I thought that programs like Social Security and Medicare were unsustainable unless Congress was willing to act to protect those programs. And here we are in my 18th year. We've nibbled around the edges of a couple of these programs, but have never really done anything that would make these programs sustainable for tomorrow and for succeeding generations. As I have said hundreds of times on this floor, our generation has made promises to ourselves that our kids and grandkids can't afford. So if you look at the budget being presented by myself and our Republican colleagues, we assume that the capital gains rate of 15 percent will be made permanent. We assume that the rate on dividends at 15 percent is made permanent and the per-child tax credit is put in permanent law as is the marriage penalty, the tax cuts that were put in place on a temporary basis in 2001 and 2003. So our budget balances over the next 5 years, and it balances because we go in and actually do something about the spending side of the equation. Now, if you look at the Democrat budget, they assume that the 15 percent capital gains rate goes back to 20 percent. They assume that the 15 percent rate on dividends goes to whatever the marginal tax rate for that taxpayer would be, probably an average tax rate of about 30 percent on dividends, or double that tax, that the marriage penalty comes back in for all Americans and that the $1,000 per-child tax credit goes away. And I forgot one, of all things: the death tax that we want to see go away completely in 2010. The death tax, under the Democrat proposal, comes back in full force putting the Federal Government back into a competition with the heirs over the balance that we have in people's estates. But the real issue in the Democrat budget is spending. If you look at the chart I'm holding here, the Democrat budget assumes all of these tax cuts go away. So you have a $683 billion tax increase in their budget, the largest one in American history; and they have it in because if you look at their spending levels, they do nothing about reforming entitlement programs or putting a lid on the growth of domestic discretionary spending. So I think that the budget that the Republicans are putting forward here is a responsible budget, and I think, frankly, a majority of the American people would agree with me. We ought to keep tax rates low. We ought to encourage economic activity and more economic growth in America that would provide more opportunity for more jobs and better paying jobs in America, and to get the balance, do something constructive about Social Security and Medicare, especially, to modify those programs so that we can save them for future generations. At some point, we are going to have to ante up to the piper, and the sooner we begin to address the long-term problems in Social Security and Medicare, the better off we will be. So I would encourage my colleagues to look closely at the budget put together by Mr. Ryan and his Republican colleagues on the Budget Committee, and I ask all of our Members to consider supporting it.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I have a privileged resolution at the desk.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. BOEHNER. As the gentleman called the vote, I couldn't hear, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I have a privileged resolution at the desk.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, did I understand that to challenge the vote on the previous question that it would rise to a question of the privileges of the House? Is that correct?

Mr. BOEHNER. If I can't offer a privileged resolution until this business has been completed, there will have been a vote taken on final passage of this rule, which basically takes my remedy away from me. I believe that under the rule as written by the majority that a vote cannot be held open solely for the purpose of trying to change the outcome. It was violated.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to adjourn.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, when could I introduce a privileged motion?

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. BOEHNER. My colleagues, rebuilding the bonds of trust between those of us who serve in this institution and the American people should be our highest priority. And I think the American people have every right to expect the highest ethical standards of every Member of this institution, and I think it is our obligation to deliver on that commitment to the American people. Clearly, the Speaker believes that we need to establish this Office of Congressional Ethics because the Ethics Committee process is broken. Let me say, I agree with her. It is broken. It didn't work under Republican control here for at least the last 5 or 6 years that we had the majority in this House, and the lack of evidence that I've seen over the last 15 months, it's not worked well under the Democratic majority either. In December of 2006, as the Speaker was waiting to take her position, she and I sat down and we talked about this. I expressed to her at the time my serious reservations about some outside, independent group that was responsible to no one. And I mentioned to the Speaker at the time that I thought that our obligations, as the leaders of this institution, were to stand up to make sure that this process really did work. I think every Member of this institution wants the Ethics Committee process to work fairly, to work honestly, and to work in a bipartisan fashion, because it is our obligation to the American people and the obligation of each and every one of us, for the future of this institution, to make sure that this process works fairly, honestly, and in a bipartisan way. I was here in 1991. Some of you were. Most of you weren't. I was standing right on the back wall when I and some of my colleagues had information that we read in USA Today about Members of Congress bouncing 8,300-some-odd checks the year before at the House bank. Some of us wanted to know why or how, what was going on at the House bank. And before we could get to the microphones with our privileged resolution, the Speaker of the House was down here in the well of the House. The majority leader was down here in the well of the House. Even the Republican leader was here in the well of the House, and all three of them basically said the same thing: We didn't do anything wrong, and we won't do it again. So, for those of you that have concerns about the habits of this institution to sweep these issues under the rug, I saw it, and I've seen it since on both sides of the aisle. When we will not rise up to meet our responsibility as Members, to judge each other and to hold ourselves to a higher ethical standard, I know that tendency. And for those new Members that are here who want to bring this process and make it more transparent and make it more open, trust me, there's no one who will work more closely with you to make it happen. The Ethics Committee process, again, I'm going to say it again, needs to work fairly, it needs to work honestly, and it needs to work in a bipartisan fashion. In 2005 and 2006, the then minority leader, Ms. Pelosi, the minority whip, Mr. Hoyer, castigated the majority to no end over the issue of, it might have been in 2004 and 2005, over the issue of making changes to the ethics process and the ethics rules in a partisan manner. And I agreed with them. And those changes were later rescinded by a vote in this House. But over the last 15 months, three times we've had bipartisan, I mean partisan changes to the rules brought to the floor of this House and forced down Members' throats. Three times. Tonight is the fourth time, the fourth time that we've gone down the same path that people decried and decried. And I think all of us on both sides of the aisle know that if this process is going to work fairly and honestly and in a bipartisan manner, it needs to be written in a bipartisan manner. No other way around it. The members of the task force, Mike Capuano, the gentleman from Massachusetts, the other three Democrat members, Lamar Smith and the other three Republican members really did hard work and really tried to come to some agreement. But when you start to create this outside entity, as an excuse, as a way of saying we're doing something, instead of actually fixing the problem, that's where we could never come to an agreement. I look around this House and I know that there are a majority of the Members of this House who are opposed to the creation of this Office of Congressional Ethics. I see you. I know who you are. You all know it. We've been through this process. The 18 years that I've been here, we've been through this process of self-flagellating ourselves and introducing new ethics packages, passing them on the floor of the House, all of it, all of it under some rules of public pressure. But what we really have never done is to create an ethics process that does work fairly and honestly in a bipartisan manner. I don't know what goes on down there, and I understand there's a reason for some secrecy, but to have some idea that something is moving in the ethics process would be helpful, to know that they are investigating case number whatever it is and that it will move. But I do think that the proposal that we have tonight before us is partisan. I don't think it'll work. And I don't think it's in the best interest of the American people or this institution. The current Ethics Committee is made up of five members appointed by the Speaker and five members appointed by the minority leader. It's bipartisan. The problem we have is that the process itself has not worked. And it's been frankly 10 years since it's worked very well. Now, there's a lot of ways to make it work. I think more transparency and more accountability. And I think Members could come to an agreement on making that process work, although I do believe the most important thing that will make it work is a commitment by the leaders on both sides of the aisle to say, we expect the Ethics Committee to work; we expect them to do our job. And the two leaders need to stand there and uphold those Members and the work that they do on behalf of this entire House. It can happen. But the new proposal is three Members appointed by the Speaker and three Members appointed by myself and we have to come to an agreement. We have six Members that we could, six Members on this outside organization that we could agree on. Now, the Speaker and I have come to some agreements here over the last couple of weeks, and it's been a very nice and wonderful experience. But to think that we can come to an agreement on six people to serve on this outside panel strikes me as a stretch. I can't imagine who in their right mind would want to serve on this outside panel because of the fighting that's going to occur, not by Members, but by partisan groups on both sides who are going to want to be filing frivolous complaints. And the problem with this outside process is that it does not have the secrecy and accountability that's necessary to ensure that Members' reputations aren't drug through the mud by some partisan charge that may have no basis in fact at all. None. Now, if the bipartisan process that we have called the Ethics Committee doesn't work, why would we think that this bipartisan outside Ethics Committee is going to work any better? I just want to say that this institution means a lot to me. It means a lot to, I think, all of us who serve. And before I came to the floor, I was watching the proceedings from my office, and I saw the new Member, the gentleman from Illinois, sitting here, probably was scratching his head wondering on his first day in Congress he's in the middle of this big partisan fight. It's not usually this way. But I've got to tell you that it really isn't usually this way. What we're about to undertake here is something that will never be undone, if we do it. And if we do it wrong, which I believe it is being done wrong, it will be something that this institution and its Members will live with for a long, long time to come. And I think there's only one real answer, and I want all of my colleagues to really seriously consider doing the right thing tonight. I think that we ought to defeat the previous question. I think that we ought to send this back to a committee that can, in a bipartisan way, find a way to make the Ethics Committee process work in the fair, honest and bipartisan manner in which we all want it to work. Let's not paper over the problem. Let us go fix the problem, and the problem is the Ethics Committee process itself. And so I would ask my colleagues to thank the great work of the bipartisan group of Members who tried to put this together, thank them for their job and the job they did for this institution. But let's also reject this proposal, agree that we will work together in a bipartisan way to do the right thing for our Members, our colleagues, this institution and for the American people. Defeat the previous question.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the privileges of the House have been dishonored, that the rules have been violated.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, I just wanted to take a moment to thank the majority leader for his consideration of the Members on both sides of the aisle that had concerns about the way we were proceeding. I think all of us have, as I said upstairs in the Rules Committee, have the same objective: to have a fair process that clearly enforces the rules of the House. The American people have the right to expect the highest ethical standards of all of us, and how we achieve that objective is where the debate is. I think all of us have the same goal. But I just want to rise to say thank you to the majority leader for giving us time to try to resolve the differences that we might have.