John Boehner

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Let me thank my colleague from Indiana for yielding, and thank he and his colleagues who have introduced this amendment for their work. All of this talk about bringing back the fairness doctrine caused me to think about the whole idea of the Federal Communications Commission, set up in the 1930s to regulate the air waves and the spectrum that's out there so that we didn't have two radio stations on the same wave. This was set up in the 1930s. And then in the 1940s we got into the idea that, well, there aren't that many options in TV and radio, and so maybe we ought to make sure that all of them, in terms of what they say, is fair. Well, that might have been helpful in the 1940s and 1950s and 1960s, but my goodness, we're in the 21st century, where people get their news from thousands of different sources. It could be radio, from hundreds and hundreds of radio stations. It could be from TV, where we now have hundreds and hundreds of stations. It could be from the Internet. It could be from the newspapers. There's lots of places for people to get their news. And at the end of the day, as I think about the fairness doctrine, I think about those of us in Congress. We get elected based on our constituents and what we're for and what we're against, whether they like us or they don't like us. And if they like us, they might vote for us again. And if they don't like us, guess what, they get to go punch the ballot for somebody else. Well, when it comes to the issue of the fairness doctrine, when we're dealing with radio, they can go a lot of different places. And I think that the best way is to let the judgment of the American people decide. And they can decide with their finger. They can turn it off or they can turn it on. They can change channels or they can decide to go to their computer and read it on the Internet. And the idea that people are calling for the fairness doctrine to be called back reminds me, once again, of why I came here. I came here because I thought government was too big, it spent too much, and no one was holding the government accountable. Let's trust the American people to do what they think is best. Their finger can make all the decisions, all that they need to make on their own behalf. Let's trust them to do the right thing.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Let me thank my colleague from Ohio for yielding, and let me thank him for bringing this amendment to the floor. All this amendment says is that we are going to reduce the level of spending in this bill to last year's level. It's overdoing. We are not whacking away at everything, and I think that the gentleman has a very good point. I do that because excessive spending makes it more difficult for us to balance the Federal budget. It takes money away from our children and our grandchildren. An across-the-board cut is another way of being fair and simple, but it gets us back to last year's level. Now, the spending in these appropriations bills is one issue. But let's make sure we review the bidding on what's happened here thus far this year. In February, when the supplemental spending bill came through, the CR to fund the government for this year came through here, it had $6 billion of spending over and above the President's level. And then we had the budget come through with an additional $20 billion worth of domestic discretionary spending included in it. And then just last month we had the supplemental spending bill for Iraq and Katrina that had an additional $17 billion over and above what the President has asked for. If you look at all of that, $1.1 billion in the Energy and Water Appropriations Bill that's already passed, another $1.9 billion in this bill, you begin to add all this up, and it's real money. And at some point, somebody has to pay for it. And that's the real crux of the issue here. Most of us came here to make sure that we had a government that was affordable, so that we could keep the American Dream alive for our kids and theirs. And the more that we spend and the more that we mortgage their future, the harder it is for them to have the same chances in life that many of us have had. And if the spending that we've talked about isn't bad enough, if you look at the budget that my friends across the aisle passed last spring, there's no entitlement reform. My colleague, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Obey, will soon rise and talk about the $4 billion or $4 trillion worth of debt that's accumulated over the last 6 years. We know that we have to deal with entitlements. I'm trying to help you give your speech, Mr. Obey. We have to deal with entitlements. Over the course of the 12 years that Republicans ran the House, we dealt with entitlements some three times, not as often as we should have, not as aggressively as we should have. But we have made promises to ourselves, those of us who are baby boomers, promises that our kids and our grandkids can't afford. And at some point we, as responsible stewards of our government, need to grab a hold of these entitlements and begin to change them. Several years ago we made a modest effort, some $40 billion in entitlement reductions over 5 years, a step in the right direction. But to bring a budget out here that says we're not going to deal with entitlements for the next 5 years, I think, is totally irresponsible. And so if we're serious about making sure that our kids and their kids have a real chance at the American Dream, we've got to say no. The American people sent us here to make decisions about how to best spend their money. And if we just keep adding more money, guess what? We never have to make a decision. That's not what the American people expect of us. They expect of us to have a government that's affordable, that's accountable, and something that they can afford in their family budget.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, let me thank my colleague for yielding. We are having a debate here about whether we should cut spending. Most American families go through a process of trying to decide what it is they can afford in their family budget. The American people send us here to make the same kind of decisions. But when we just add spending and add spending and add spending, which we have done all year, guess what, we don't have to make decisions. That is exactly what is happening here. The majority wants to denigrate this amendment because they think it is frivolous. They think it is an across-the-board 1 percent cut; you don't have to think. The point I am trying to make and my colleagues are trying to make, we are sent here to make decisions; and if the majority isn't going to make decisions, we are going to try to make the decisions easier. Let's just have a 1 percent across-the-board cut, bring this budget in line with what the President requested on behalf of the American people. I have been hearing all year from my friends on the other side that we heard the electorate and we heard the message they sent to us. Well, I have to tell you that one of the messages they sent to us is that we here in Congress need to be more fiscally responsible. We are going to have a debate over spending all summer. We are going to have a debate over spending all fall. Because, at some point, how much government do we need? How much of the American family budget to we need to take in taxes? I think my colleague has a very good amendment here. I urge my colleagues to support the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the retirement of Fred Worth, a History and Government teacher at Miami East High School in Miami County, Ohio, and to express my appreciation for his dedication and commitment to the youth of our Nation. For the last 30 years, Fred has contributed his time and his talents to the betterment of so many young adults and for this I offer him my utmost congratulations and thanks. Whether it is coaching baseball, volunteering at St. Patrick's Church or teaching in the classroom, his students and players exhibit the best of our younger generations. I know many of Fred's former students and players have blossomed into wonderful adults and he's played a big part in shaping their character. I'm proud to call Fred my friend and for that I express my most sincere gratitude. His leadership will be missed, but the footprint he leaves will inspire many to dream big, reach high and achieve great things. I consider it an honor to represent Fred in Congress and I wish him and his wife Janet a long, happy and healthy retirement.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. I appreciate my colleague for yielding and I appreciate the work he is doing bringing this amendment to the floor. I came to Washington 17 years ago because I thought government was too big, I thought it spent too much and didn't think that it was being held accountable. And the reason I am here this afternoon on this bill is because this amendment offered by Mr. Wilson and Mr. Campbell will reduce the overall spending level in this bill to the President's request. The President submitted a budget back in January that said we can balance the budget over the next 5 years without raising taxes. But to do that, it's dependent upon us holding the line on spending. Even at the President's level, there is an increase over last year, and I believe that bringing the level of spending down in this bill to what the President requested puts this bill in a position to actually move through the process and become law. If you looked over the course of this year, our friends on the other side of the aisle have a budget that will balance over the next 5 years, but with the largest tax increase in American history. If we want to review the bidding on spending here in Washington this year, you go back to February with a CR that was some $6 billion over the President's request. And then we can look at the supplemental spending bill for Iraq and Katrina and other things that was $17 billion over the President's request. And now if we look at the appropriations process that we're in the midst of, we have an additional $20 billion over and above where the President is. At the end of the day, the American people want to keep more of the money that they earn and want to send less of that money here to Washington. And I think to the extent we can hold the line on spending, we're protecting the taxpayers, protecting their wallets. I think this is a modest amendment that reduces the spending in this bill by some $1.13 billion, it's the right move, and our colleagues ought to support the amendment.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. And, yes, we on both sides of the aisle over the last number of years, the appropriators have worked through a unanimous-consent request to provide for the consideration of a lot of these bills, under an open rule. We still have an open rule. But the agreement has been, over the past several years, that we work through that process with the Members to make sure that Members have all the time they need to debate their amendment. But, again, it's a unanimous-consent agreement, which means unanimous.

Mr. BOEHNER. Unanimous means unanimous. But I think both sides have agreed that we will work with our Members to ensure that they have the right to offer their amendments, that we try to come to some agreements on time so that the process can move along. But that does not mean that we are interested at all in infringing on any Member's right to offer their amendment. But I do believe that Members on both sides of the aisle want to see this process move along, and that's why it is under consideration for each of these bills that there would be some unanimous-consent agreement that we would come to.

Mr. BOEHNER. The rule change that has been discussed earlier on the point of order on the consideration of an appropriation conference report with regard to airdropped earmarks is expected to be offered to the House under unanimous consent agreement on Monday evening.

Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding. The purpose of this remedy, a point of order on consideration of the conference report, is to deal with earmarks that may have not been considered by the House or the Senate, what we have come to term airdropped earmarks. There are cases where over the length of the consideration of an appropriation bill in the House and the Senate, circumstances may change and there may be a reason to put an earmark, if you will, in an appropriation. And to preserve the right for all Members to consider these earmarks, having the point of order on the consideration of the appropriation bill, we believed, was an appropriate way for any Member to bring to light one of these earmarks. There is 10 minutes of debate on each side, and then the House can decide whether to proceed with the consideration of the conference report or not.

Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman would yield further, we went through a great debate last year over this issue. As we all know, we have work to do, and to allow debate on a conference report on every individual issue, you get into a ping-pong effect of the House objecting to one issue, a Senate issue, we could send it over there, they would send it back, we would never get the bill finished. The idea behind the point of order on the conference report is to bring this issue to light, and if you bring an issue to light that is of such substance, the House may in fact vote to sustain the gentleman's point of order and there is no consideration of the conference report. But we have never been able to find a way to get to each particular item in a conference report, as the gentleman has suggested.

Mr. BOEHNER. If the gentleman from Kentucky will yield further, the agreement that we have come to with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle is that for 10 of the 12 appropriations bills, the earmarks will in fact be listed. Traditionally, the Homeland Security appropriation bill has had very, very few earmarks in it. It won't be like you have to go through a whole laundry list to determine what is in it. Secondly, the bill that we expect to be before us tomorrow, the Military Quality-of-Life Veterans bill, it also has earmarks, but almost all of them have been scrubbed by the Department of Defense, and I think there has been an understanding that, given the time constraints, that these two bills would in fact move without earmarks but that the next 10 bills would have earmarks included in them.

Mr. BOEHNER. If the gentleman would yield, if you raise a point of order on the consideration of the conference report and the House agrees with your point of order, the consideration of the conference report is stopped and what in real terms happens is the conference report goes back to conference where the issue that was brought to light is dealt with. There are a lot of ways to deal with, let's say in your case, what you would call an objectionable earmark by bringing that point of order and having the House's support. Basically it goes back and you begin to deal with it.

Mr. BOEHNER. If the gentleman would yield?

Mr. BOEHNER. I appreciate my colleague for yielding. Unanimous consent means unanimous consent. It's the commitment on the part of myself and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to work with our respective Members to make sure that every Member's needs are met in the unanimous consent agreements. Now, we will be happy to work with the gentleman on his issues as we go through these bills. It's not intended to deny any Member's right to offer an amendment here on the floor.

Mr. BOEHNER. This is precisely the rule that was adopted by the House last September.

Mr. BOEHNER. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. BOEHNER. The gentleman from Maryland, the majority leader, has given me his word. The gentleman and I have a long relationship. I have not one doubt that Monday evening this unanimous consent agreement will be entered into.

Mr. BOEHNER. I appreciate the gentleman yielding because we have come to an agreement amongst us. The rule we are talking about putting in place is identical to what we had last year on the consideration of a conference report that has earmarks in it that had not been considered by the House or the Senate. And that rule change will be proffered, we believe, on Monday evening by the majority leader.

Mr. BOEHNER. As soon as I catch my breath, I will be happy to give you one. The agreement we have reached with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle is intended to preserve every Member's right to make additions, to make changes, to offer amendments to the bill. I think, how can I best describe this, that over the course of at least the last two or three years that I'm aware of, we've brought these bills to the floor under an open rule, and there have been bipartisan agreements, the unanimous-consent agreements, on how we're going to proceed. And the agreement that we have is basically to uphold what we've done in the past few Congresses. And so as the gentleman pointed out, what we've agreed to is generally, the time limits, times that were used in the past, but it's general. We don't know what these bills look like, some of them yet. We're not sure what they may contain, and so I felt constrained in coming to an agreement on a specific time limit because we haven't seen the bills, but I think there are enough of us in this Chamber who've worked together, who trust each other to be able to come to a unanimous-consent agreement that gets unanimous consent because that's how it works.

Mr. BOEHNER

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

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, Mr. Obey, I will say this: I will be happy to abide by the 10 o'clock rule if you will give real transparency and real accountability to the American people on earmark reform. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Motion to Rise Offered by Mr. Boehner

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, some of my colleagues probably are wondering why at 20 minutes to 1 we are still in the House Chamber debating this issue. I think all of us understand that there is a difference over the amount of money being appropriated in this bill and what is being allocated to all of the appropriation bills. If we go back and review the bidding on the spending levels over the course of this year, we spent an additional $6 billion in the CR back in February. We spent an additional $17 billion over and above the President's request for the supplemental spending bill for Iraq, Katrina, and a whole host of other issues that many Members did not support. When we look at the appropriation bills for the fiscal year 2008 beginning in October, we see that we are going to spend an additional $20 billion. So if you add those numbers up, you can see that we are spending tens of billions of dollars, well above what the President requested for not only this current fiscal year, but the next fiscal year. If that isn't bad enough, let's also remember that this Congress in this first 5 months has already authorized some $105 billion of new spending in their proposals that have been brought to this floor and passed. So for many of us, at some point we have to say, enough is enough when it comes to spending. The second issue involves the transparency and accountability with regard to earmarks. Last year I went through hell and high water to put into effect an earmark reform proposal that dealt with appropriation bills, that dealt with authorization bills and dealt with tax bills. It required full disclosure, it required names to be attached, and it allowed Members of this House, both on the floor of this House with an appropriation bill or authorization bill or tax bill, or a conference report with regard to an appropriation bill, tax bill or authorization bill, to move under a point of order or to strike that amount of money. There are 435 of us in this Chamber who are well-equipped to deal with bringing the accountability into this process that all of us want. The Democrat majority in January, when they adopted their rules, gutted the earmark reform proposal that we put into effect last year, while at the same time saying that they were making it stronger. The fact is, Members do not have access to these earmarks in these bills. We have all heard the stories tonight about what the chairman expects to do after we pass the appropriation bills, with these slush funds included in them, secret slush funds, which will later be allocated based on the decision of one person, one of the 535 of us. It is not right, and the gentleman from Wisconsin knows it is not right. Now, the gentleman from Wisconsin says we haven't had time to do this. I can tell the gentleman from Wisconsin over the last 3\1/2\ months we have, as he has often said, posed for holy pictures over the fight over funding our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and around the world. We had plenty of time to look at those earmarks, but we didn't do it because we were busy posing for holy pictures. I can tell the gentleman that to bring a bill forward with no earmarks in it with a promise that we will all see them later is not good enough. I think the Members on our side of the aisle want real disclosure, want real transparency, and I think what the American people want most is real accountability. Now, let me get to the last issue. For 6 years the gentleman from Wisconsin had the 10 o'clock rule. When we were doing appropriation bills, the majority on our side was not allowed to work after 10 o'clock. Now, I happen to agree with the gentleman from Wisconsin, because I think working after 10 o'clock is not in the best interests of our Nation. For the nine out of 10 times that we have tried to work after 10 o'clock at night, my colleague from Wisconsin refused to operate after 10 o'clock and threatened all of us that if we worked after 10 o'clock, we would have all of these procedural motions, motions to rise, and we would not be here. Now, I told the gentleman, I agree with the gentleman from Wisconsin. I go to bed at 10 o'clock. I don't think good work happens after 10 o'clock at night. So what I told the majority earlier today is that we weren't going to work after 10 o'clock at night because we were going to impose the Obey rule on the institution.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, in Ohio and elsewhere this week, thousands of Americans are saluting the contributions of a great coaching legend. Mike Cameron, the longtime baseball coach at Moeller High School in Cincinnati, OH, has announced his retirement after 39 seasons--bringing to a close what the Cincinnati Enquirer has aptly described as ``one of the greatest high school coaching careers in Ohio history.'' Coach Cameron compiled a record of 767-303 during his career as coach of the Moeller Crusader baseball team, a record that includes four state championships. His retirement announcement came just weeks after he reached a key milestone in his decorated coaching career: on April 30, 2007, Coach Cameron became the ``All-time Winningest'' Division I baseball coach in Ohio history with a win against LaSalle High School at the new Crosley Field in Blue Ash, OH. The numbers tell a great story, but not the whole story. As a member of the Moeller High School Class of 1968--one of our school's first graduating classes--I've known Mike for decades. Before he became the baseball coach at Moeller, Mike was an assistant football coach under another Moeller legend, Gerry Faust, where he coached me during my junior and senior years. We also knew each other through our neighbors and our mutual interest in community service. Since my graduation nearly 40 years ago, I've watched Moeller build a proud national reputation for all-around excellence in Catholic education, and Mike has always been a big part of it. The Moeller tradition emphasizes students' growth in all areas--academic growth, athletic and extra-curricular growth, and spiritual growth. There are few members of the Moeller family who have done as much as Mike Cameron has over the years to help Moeller establish and cultivate this proud tradition. If you talk to Mike's players, it's clear he's been a positive force in the lives of countless young people in the Greater Cincinnati area. But his legacy at Moeller is not limited to the baseball diamond. During his decades at Moeller, Coach Cameron earned the gratitude and respect of thousands of students he didn't coach, as well as that of countless Moeller parents and faculty members. Coach Cameron also has the admiration of many Americans, from local fans of Moeller baseball to parents who have taken their children to watch one of the multiple players he helped to reach the big leagues. On behalf of the United States Congress, I salute my friend, Coach Mike Cameron, on a long and distinguished career that is a source of pride for the entire Moeller family and the people of Southwest Ohio.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate, thank, and recognize my constituent Mr. James Detherage for 35 years of service and 30 years as Chief with the West Chester Fire Department. As a husband, father and Fire Chief, James has given outstanding service and support to the people of West Chester. His lengthy and tireless work in West Chester over three decades is a constant source of pride and unconditional praise. As Chief of the West Chester Fire Department, James has seen the department grow from a volunteer staff to its current state of 40 full-time firefighters. Outside of his post as Chief, he has also served as President of the Butler County Fireman's Association, President of the Southwest District of Ohio Fire Chiefs Association and President of the Butler County Fire Chief's Association. James' attitude, fierce determination, and community spirit are a source of energy for all those around him. So much of James' work is done quietly and without reward and it is my honor to take this moment to say thank you and congratulate him on his new position as West Chester Township Public Safety Director.