Via email:
BOEHNER: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Some of my colleagues are wondering why at 20 minutes to 1:00am we are still in the House chamber debating this issue. I think all of us understand 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 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 the first five 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 -- 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 and 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 to this process that all of us want.
The Democrat majority in January when they adopted their rules gutted the earmark reform proposal we put into effect last year while at the same time saying they were making it stronger. The fact is members do not have access to these earmarks in these bills. We’ve all heard the stories tonight what the chairman expects to do after we pass the appropriation bells, what these slush funds included in them, secret slush funds which later will be allocated based on the decision of one, one of the 535 of us. It’s not right and the gentleman from Wisconsin knows it is not right.
The gentleman from Wisconsin says we haven’t had time to do that. I can tell the gentleman from Wisconsin over the last 3 1/2 months we’ve done 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 earmark in it with a promise you’ll see them later is not good enough. I think the members on our side of the aisle want real disclosure, real transparency and I think what the American people want most is real accountability.
Now let me get to the last issue. For six years, for six years, for six years the gentleman from Wisconsin had the 10:00pm rule. When we were doing appropriation bills the majority on our side was not allowed to work after 10:00pm. I happen to agree with the gentleman from of Wisconsin . I happen to think that working after 10:00pm is not in the best interest of our nation. For nine of the 10 times we tried to work after 10:00pm at night my colleague from Wisconsin refused to operate after 10:00 and threatened all of us if we worked after 10:00pm we would have all of these procedural motions, motions to rise and we wouldn’t be here.
Now I told the gentleman. I agree with the gentleman from Wisconsin.* * *
OBEY: Will the gentleman yield?
BOEHNER: I agree with the gentleman from Wisconsin. I go to bed at 10:00pm. I don’t think good work happens after 10:00pm tonight. What I told the majority earlier today is we weren’t going to have to work because we were going to impose the Obey rule on the institution. And I would be happy to yield to my colleague from Wisconsin.
OBEY: Let me point out there is one critical difference between last year and tonight. Last year you agreed that we would shut down at 10:00pm because we agreed to put time limits on the amendments we could finish the bills. And I cooperated procedurally so you could move every single bill through the House even though I disagreed with some of them. The key was we each got something. You got to -- you got to finish the bills and we agreed because we were setting time limits on amendments that therefore there would be no need to work after 10:00pm. You haven’t been willing to work under time limits.
BOEHNER: In reclaiming my time Mr. Obey, I will be happy to abide by the 10:00pm rule if you give us real transparency and real accountability to the American people on earmark reform. And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back and I move the committee do now rise.
CHAIRMAN: The question is on the motion to rise. Those in favor will say yes. Those opposed, no. The noes have it.
PRICE: Mr. Chairman, I ask for a recorded vote.
CHAIRMAN: A recorded vote is requested.
