Posted on 02/02/2006 10:51:37 AM PST by ZGuy
IT'S BOEHNER, 122-109
For my part, I resolve to do better.
Question: Why do you want to get back into House leadership?
Answer: I have a track record of proven leadership to the party and we've had a very successful five years as chairman of the Education and Workforce Committee and I think that the talents that I have can be useful to the Majority Caucus.
Q: Why do you want to be Majority Leader?
A: There's only one opening, all right? I believe that it's a position where you can provide great leadership in terms of developing a collective vision in terms of who we are, why we are here and what we hope to accomplish for the American people.
Q: Why get in the race now? What about when Armey ran?
A: That would have been, in hindsight, that would have been, could have been, a better decision than staying where I was. But I have a close relationship with Dick Army and respected him and could never have run against him.
Q: The Majority Leader position was open again when Armey left - Why didn't you run then?
A: It's really one of the more interesting things that happened to me when I was here. It was a Tuesday night in December of 2001. I was in the final stages of an agreement on No Child Left Behind. I was walking to work that Wednesday morning ... and I thought to myself, as I was walking to work, saying my prayers, I thought to myself, no, I have to stay here and finish what I started with No Child Left Behind. I had spent a whole year at it. So I came into the office and there was a large group of staff here and - for a conversation - and just told all of them that we can't be distracted form finishing our work on this bill and it should be finished in a couple of days and if there's an opportunity then, we'll take a look at it, and if there's not, fine. On Friday, when we finished our agreement and passed our conference report, the race was pretty well over. I mean, clearly, I was very comfortable with it. And I've been very comfortable ever since. ... The timing was... It wasn't the right time at all. It almost looked like a trap. And while I had an interest, I had put my heart and soul into this bill and just thought it would be a huge distraction when we were this close to the goal.
Q: Is it a goal of yours to be House Speaker someday?
A: It's been my goal for a long time. But there are 435 of us and everybody would like to be House Speaker. And while it has been a goal - it may happen, it may not - I've worked at it for a long time.
Q: How will being Majority Leader benefit folks in the 8th District, especially since you don't believe in bringing home any pork?
A: I don't do earmarks.
Q: Why not?
A: I told my constituents in 1990 that if they thought that my job was to rob the federal treasury on their behalf, then they were voting for the wrong guy. And it's a practice that I've tried to reform, not very successfully, and something that I think is beyond my job as a member of Congress. Some of my colleagues disagree on that issue. But I think that because you have a position of power, to unfairly earmark federal funds for pet projects in your district, it goes against what most of my constituents want. And so, I have not done it. And we see now that, you know, some of these earmarks have been obtained by means that are rather unscrupulous. I think I'm going to have the best chance I've ever had to begin to reform this earmark process.
Q: Like the so-called Bridge to Nowhere?
A: There's all kinds of examples of earmarks that people just get disgusted over, and that's because they get inserted into bills at the last minute and there is no accountability. And I just think that we need to go through a much cleaner process for reviewing those special projects that end up in bills. Not all of them are bad, and I don't mean to make that association. Some, frankly, are very worthwhile, but there's a lot of them there that just don't pass the spit-sniff test.
Q: Local officials have complained that they are losing out on millions of dollars for highway projects, parks, sewers, etc. Yet you still won't budge, why not?
A: They have. They have. They have. Look, we're broke. The federal government is continuing to spend more money than we bring in and the earmarking for local projects only makes the problem worse.
Q: But if you don't get pork for the 8th District, someone else will get it. It's not like the money goes back to the federal treasury...
A: I'm for reducing the size and scope of the federal government - always have been. And I'm going to continue to work for the big goals that came here to achieve.
Q: So let's go back to my first question. How will being Majority Leader benefit folks in the 8th District?
It will be the home of the Majority Leader!
A: What else?
Q: That's it. ... Listen, I am not going to abuse my position for the benefit of anyone. I've never done it. It's just not who I am. It's now why I came to Congress. I came to Congress because I thought government was too big and too involved in our lives. And I've worked to reduce the size and scope of the federal government. It's who I am. It's not some position I take. It's at the core of who I am.
Q: So should people even care?
A: Reading this morning's Hamilton Journal editorial, I guess that was basically their point. So what?
This is where we are talking about special earmarks, which are one-line provisions in bills. That's what I call pork. Now, let's talk about bacon. Which is my description of it. Where, let's say we are doing the defense bill, and there is a need for more up-armored Humvees. I will work to get our share of that defense spending bill, and I have worked every year for the last 12, 13 years to increase the amount of money for up-armored Humvees, that is part of my job. To work to get more funding to Ohio for the highway bill, to increase our share of the highway funds, I've worked at. To fix the ethanol problem... which I've worked to do that. And, thirdly, I sit down almost annually with Gordon Proctor, the Ohio Highway Director, in terms of projects in my district because that's the right way to do it, in my view. When it comes to upgrading I-75 through Dayton, several intersections in I-70 up in the northern part of my district, talking to them about the Ohio 129 extension right in my district or the bypass 4 extention. Route 4 extention. Route 62 extention and the bypass for widening. Those are big projects in my district - none of which could be accomplished with an earmark - but could be accomplished by working though the Ohio Department of Transportation to secure funding for those projects.
Q: So, not going for the smaller items, but going for the big stuff?
A: Exactly. ... Where the line is, and it's very hard for constituents to understand this, I don't put unauthorized earmarks in bills. But I will work to get our share of authorized money, which is the lion's share of it. Give you another example. In Medicare, there's a reimbursement rate given depending on what your metro code is. Cincinnati and Dayton are big urban centers and there's a reimbursement rate there of X. Butler County used to be classified a rural county and got a lower reimbursement rate, so the hospitals in our area were at a disadvantage even though they were competing with those hospitals in Dayton and Cincinnati and frankly should get the same reimbursement rate. And I worked to get them that same reimbursement rate. So, there are legitimate things that I do for my district, but doing it the right way.
Q: So would you have more influence on these things as Majority Leader? I mean, you are already committee chairman - and pretty well known.
A: Being the No. 2 guy certainly gives you more clout to address those particular needs.
Q: And you get to set what even gets considered on the House floor?
A: Correct. I mean, you're basically making decisions about what's going to come to the floor and what isn't.
Q: Now let's talk about Blunt. Their latest number is 39... What is yours?
A: Oooooooh. Don't pay any attention to these numbers. We put out some public names. They put out some public names. We've been through the sprint phase of this and now we're getting into the marathon. We're gong to have two or three weeks of this left.
Q: Do you feel like the underdog in this race?
A: Yeah ... that's correct. He's in the leadership currently ... and so, he would have somewhat of a natural advantage.
Q: What about Congressman Shadegg - Apparently he's thinking of running as the outsider?
A: You know, there's lots of people interested in getting in. But, nah, I've got commitments, Roy has commitments, it'd be very difficult at this point. But, who knows?
Q: Why are you a better person for the job than Blunt?
A: Well, I think... I put a document out on Monday that outlines a plan for how to move us from where we are to where I think we need to be, and a process for getting us there. As I tell my colleagues, this isn't a document with a bunch of words on a piece of paper. This is a model that I've used when I ran my business, when I brought my congressional office through 15 years, and when I run my committee. If you look on the wall over here you see "Boehner 2005 Team Goals" where we outline a vision of why we are here, collectively, I and all my staff, what our goals are, how do we think we are going to achieve those goals. It's being able to lay out a process, to help your colleagues develop a vision.
Q: So you didn't just write this up on Saturday, huh?
A: No, no, this is really been going on for months as a way of basically taking the principles that guided the way that I have tended to manage our team and apply them to the majority. So, I have a plan, I have the skills to get it done, and I think most of my colleagues agree that I've got the skills to lead t hem.
Q: But why you and not Blunt? What specifically sets you apart? I know the earmark issue is one thing, his ties to DeLay are another...
A: When you're talking about securing the vote of your colleagues. This is different than running for election as a member. This is an election amongst the members, amongst the people who get elected. I could give you a description of it, but it probably wouldn't look good in the paper. You know, there are a lot of subjective impressions and decisions that they have to make about who has the leadership skills to lead us. At this point in the race, it's about gathering up your friends and gathering up a few others, and locking them down. But there are a lot of members out there who are taking this very seriously, because it's a big decision for us. And I think, at the end of the day, I think that a lot of my colleagues remember when I lost the race in 1998, saw me hold my head high, go back and do my work, clearly helped me become the chairman of the Education and Workforce Committee, and what we've been able to accomplish over the last 5 years, and the fact that we've changed the culture of that committee dramatically - gives people real evidence that I've got the leadership skills that they are looking for. That's what it all boils down to, nothing more, nothing less. Who do they think has the leadership skills to get it done. ... And when you say leadership skills, that's very subjective. It's in every members eyes what they view as the ability to lead. At the end of the day, that is the big issue.
Q: Well, at the end of the day, the big issue is whether you are going to be able to help them retain the Republican majority in the House.
A: That's a big concern ... for a lot of members.
Q: Who do you think can get that done?
A: Listen, you know, I like Roy, we've talked about this possibility for a year that we could be in this race together. But, you know, he's been in the leadership, he is in the leadership, he's been there. And, rearranging the chairs on the Titanic wasn't going to really make a whole lot of difference, and I think members want more than a rearranging of chairs on the Titanic.
Q: So you are saying they want a new face in leadership?
A: They want a new face and they want somebody with the ability to lead.
Q: So you think you are better situated to maintain the majority, basically?
A: I think I can bring to the leadership the ability to help lead us out of this .. this problem we are in to a successful ...
Q: Good, just the thing I wanted to bring up. This whole lobbying thing and Jack Abramoff. I know you have been reminding everyone how when you came into Congress you were a reformer...
A: There's the picture right back there. Did you ever see the Gang of Seven picture? We were the poster children for the 1992 election cycle. Those that weren't here don't appreciate seven freshman Republicans in the minority: no power, any shape, I mean, we had none.
We took on not only the Democratic leadership, but we took on the Republican leadership as well, we took on the entire body to clean up what was a disgrace. And out of that stumbled the House post office scandal, and the House restaurant scandal. And we looked up one day in 1992 and realized that we were on the end of the limb and if we didn't win, our careers were finished. We would never have gotten a committee assignment. We'd have gotten nothing. We had not choice but to ... and we did win, and we won because we took our case directly to the American people..... You know, I was one of a handful of people who actually thought that we could become a Republican majority. And not just thought it but began to work with others to organize a plan that would help make us the first Republican majority in 40 years. A part of that effort was the Contract With America, but it was just a part of a broader effort to convince our colleagues and others that we really could become the majority party. (Don: We only have a couple more minutes.)
Q: You said you want to move the party past this current problem with Jack Abramoff, but you have lobbying ties as well. When you worked on the Gingrich leadership team, you were the liaison to the lobbying world. You had the Thursday Group. How does that ...
A: But my relationship with those who lobby us has always been held to a high ethical standard. You know, there's a big difference between people who have relationships with lobbyists like Jack Abramoff where you are doing unethical and/or illegal things. I feel very comfortable in my relationship with the downtown folks that I have never done anything improper, illegal. It's just not who I am. It's not how I've ran my business. It's certainly not how I've acted as a member of Congress. So. Big difference between ethical behavior and unethical behavior.
Q: But you handed out checks on the House floor in 1995?
A: No question, I made a mistake. At the time, there was no rule prohibiting it. I regret doing it. And I then worked to change the rules to make it a violation of the rules to do so. It was a common practice back then. It was the only place where you see all the members, where they gather and vote. It was stupid and I regret doing it. But I think I handled it in the right way.
Q: So what about a rule change now. You've talked about lobbying reform. Specifically, what do we need to change? Gift rules, trip rules, lobbying reports?
A: I think that the ... On the private, paid travel, I'm not quite sure ... We're getting ready to do something on this. At a minimum, it should be approved by the ethics committee before it occurs, at a minimum, and I'm considering going further than that. ... That proposal has been out there. ... Ethics committee approval 4. The Speaker came out today for no private paid travel.
Q: Is that what you support - no private paid travel? You take a lot of trips...
A: No ... I ... No, I said .. No, I don't take a lot of trips. What looks like a lot of trips. I'm for, at this point, the ethics committee approving any private paid travel.
Q: Before the travel?
A: Before the travel. Because what that does is that they look at the itinerary , they look at who is paying for it and they have to sign off on whether it's appropriate. That seems to make sense to me. I'm concerned that if members don't travel, members never get a broad enough view of the issues that we are dealing with.
Q: What about lobbyists? Should they file more reports?
A: The other big thing that needs to happen, is there ought to be more transparency in what lobbyists do and don't do, what they pay for, and what they don't pay for. I think that would improve the system dramatically.
Q: So ... More rules on gifts from lobbyists?
A: More transparency on the relationship between lobbyists and members and staff.
Q: So, more reports?
A: When I say transparency, right now they don't have to report whether they pay for a meal. There ought to be more transparency there. Did they provide gifts, did they provide a meal, within the rules? That ought to all be out in the open.
Q: When you say "transparency" you mean "reports," right?
A: Yes. Right. They have to be required to report more information in terms of what they do and don't do.
Q: Last question, about Abramoff. You didn't get any money from him, but you got more than $30,000 from Indian tribes he represented and you won't get rid of the money. Why not?
A: Hold on, hold on. You missed something in the middle. I didn't get any money from him. I didn't know him and didn't have any relationship with him. And I got no money through him. None.
Q: How do you know that?
A: I had no relationship with him. Never been to one of my events.
Q: Why would these tribes give you money?
A: The money from these tribes ... They were represented, all of them, by more than one person. These tribes were interested in Indian education issues, which I worked closely with them on, and they were interested in labor issues that affect their reservations. And so, these tribes they can give me money, but Abramoff had nothing, nothing to do with them.
Yes. Probably a part of the strategery. Gotta keep Ohioans happy with the GOP. Show 'em the love. That notwithstanding, Boehner seems like a good pick to me.
This is too bad, I was hoping for CFG endorsed Shadegg:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/14/AR2006011400823.html
Sorry - Tom Delay stunk! We don't need his type and I hope we see him retire.
I've been reading RM's posts since this afternoon, in literal awe at how out of control he was, and could think of nothing to say in response.
Your post says it all Chunga. Reagan Man disgraces the name of the FINE man he claims to admire.......and he needs to think about how he has done that before he posts these kinds of irrational tirades again.
Garfield I think.
He could have been, Mike, I'd need to pull out the books to find out. My point was that it's been a loooong time since someone went from being a representative directly to being a president.
Er, Howlin, wasn't that the "Contract WITH America"?
:O)
LOL! We could start a rumor that he's associated with the mob. Course that would be far more likely if he were from my hometown of Youngstown. :)
yeah....
I figured that's what you meant.
I don't think it happened in the 20th Century.
You did answer. What I'd like to know is who went from being a Representative in the House to President in one fell swoop? Ever happen?
Torie says Garfield.
ROFL!!
Well, that's going back a few years! Thanks for that info; I'm just looking through pings right now and haven't caught up on actual threads.
Boehner is a graduate from my old University
where I used the GI Bill..graduated (me) in 1950..
XAVIER UNIVERSITY, CINCINNATI, OHIO...THAT'S
GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME... Jake
In 1863, he re-entered politics, being elected to the United States House of Representatives that year. He succeeded in gaining re-election every two years up through 1878.
Looks like he ran for the Senate but his seat was taken by Sherman. He was elected President in 1880, so with a two year gap, he went from the House to the White House.
Who? Garfield like Torie offered?
Garfield makes sense, but I almost said Benjamin Harrison but he was in the Senate....
GHWB was not the correct answer and that poster with the long name remains WRONG.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.