NBC Meet The Press-Transcript
NBC Meet The Press-Transcript
MR. TIM RUSSERT: Our issues this Sunday: the Senate delays a vote on the troop increase in Iraq as the debate now shifts to the House. With us, the House majority leader, Democrat Steny Hoyer of Maryland, and the House minority leader, Republican John Boehner of Ohio. The majority and minority leaders square off, only on MEET THE PRESS.
Then, a busy weekend in the race for the White House as Barack Obama officially enters the race, Hillary Clinton makes her first campaign trip to New Hampshire, and Rudy Giuliani addresses the California Republican Convention.
Then, the trial of Scooter Libby nears the end of its third week, as more journalists are expected to be called to testify. Insights and analysis from David Broder of The Washington Post, Gwen Ifill of PBS' "Washington Week," Howard Kurtz, media reporter for The Washington Post and host of CNN's "Reliable Sources," and Roger Simon of The Politico.
But first, the majority leader of the House, Congressman Steny Hoyer, and the minority leader of the House, Congressman John Boehner, are both here.
Gentlemen, welcome.
REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH): Pleasure.
REP. STENY HOYER (D-MD): Hi, Tim. Good to be with you.
MR. RUSSERT: Congressman Hoyer, the debate on the war in Iraq now shifts to the House. Will there be a resolution offered by the Democrats disapproving of the president sending more troops to Iraq?
REP. HOYER: Yes, there will be, Tim. We're going to do a very simple, straightforward, very clear resolution which says two things: We support the troops, we're going to protect the troops. Secondly, we do not support the president's escalation of troops in Iraq.
MR. RUSSERT: Why?
REP. HOYER: Because almost everybody disagrees that it will have the affect that the president has put forward, will not attain the objective of stabilizing or making more secure, and, as one Republican observed, what is simply going to-Oliver North, as a matter of fact-it's not going to be more trainers, it's going to be more troops who are targets. And we don't believe that that policy will work. The overwhelming sentiment of the military is it won't work, and certainly the American people do not believe it'll work.
MR. RUSSERT: When will the vote be?
REP. HOYER: The vote will be probably Friday.
MR. RUSSERT: Now, on Thursday, you said this: "The Republicans will be given either a substitute or a motion to recommit so that they can propose whatever substantive alternative that they choose. That will also be debated." Is that still your plan?
REP. HOYER: Not necessarily our plan, at this point in time, and let me tell you why. As we discussed this, we saw the problems that the Senate was confronted with, where the whereas clauses and the therefore clauses confused the issue. We believe the American public want a straightforward answer to the question: Do you agree with the president's proposal. Republican president has made a proposal, we're going to respond to that. We want to respond to it with great clarity, so that the Congress of the United States, every member, will have an opportunity to speak, every member will have an opportunity to vote: Do you support the escalation of troops in Iraq? And we're going to make that pretty straightforward, and we don't think that it ought to be confused by any other issues that might be raised. Those issues will have an opportunity to be raised, of course, in, in the very near term, as we consider the supplemental appropriation bill, the appropriation bill and the defense authorization bill.
MR. RUSSERT: But on this particular resolution, you are backing off your commitment to allow the Republicans to have an alternative?
REP. HOYER: We want a very straightforward, clear answer to the question: Do you support the president's escalation?
MR. RUSSERT: Congressman Boehner, will you support the resolution?
REP. BOEHNER: I will not. I believe that victory in Iraq is the only option. We've had problems in Iraq, we've had mistakes in Iraq, but Iraq is but a small part in a global war being waged by radical Islamic terrorists. It's all over the world, and it's a global movement. And the most visible part of it today we see in Iraq and in Afghanistan. And if we don't-if we don't have victory in Iraq, the consequences of failure are immense: a destabilized Iraq, a safe haven for terrorists, possible access to their oil revenue, destabilizing the greater Middle East. What happens to Israel? And if, if this isn't bad enough, who doesn't believe that if we withdraw and leave that chaos in the Middle East that the terrorists won't follow us here to the United States? Victory, victory is the only option.
MR. RUSSERT: Now, you said last week, "I think it will be rather clear in the next 60 to 90 days as to whether this plan is going to work." If, after 90 days, Baghdad is not stabilized, will you then say it hasn't worked, let's start coming home?
REP. BOEHNER: Well, General Petraeus, in his Senate confirmation, said that we probably would know by late summer how well the plan is working. It's one of the reasons why we want to offer a resolution that makes it clear that we ought to have a bipartisan panel overseeing this plan, and we outline a series of benchmarks to see how well we're doing. This plan is, is heavily dependent on the Iraqis stepping up and taking more responsibility for their own country. And I think that having these benchmarks and being able to follow the progress is very important.
MR. RUSSERT: But it has-if it hasn't worked in 90 days, will you then go to the president and say it hasn't worked?
REP. BOEHNER: I, I would, I would say over the next 60 to 90 days we'll have some idea how well we're meeting those benchmarks, the progress towards them. But General Petraeus is, is, is the commander on the ground. He's the one who says by the end of the summer we ought to have a clear idea how well it's working.
REP. HOYER: Tim, for four years we've been saying-frankly since May 1, 2003, when the president said, "The mission is accomplished." Since that time we've been saying next month it's going to get better, the next six months it's going to get better, the next year it's going to get better. In fact, as you know, the last three months have been three of the worst months that we've had in Iraq in terms of loss of our own people and loss of Iraqis. In fact, the situation-and almost every general who's been on the ground who talks about this and our men and women in the armed forces are saying the situation is not getting better, it's getting worse. Our people are greater targets than they have been, and it's time for a new policy. This isn't a new policy. The Iraq Study Group made its report. The American public voted for a new direction in November. They said we need to change policies that aren't working. This is not a new policy. Hagel-Senator Hagel said this is not a new policy. John McCain says he doesn't think this is going to work. We're going to make a clear statement next week that we do not support this escalation. And we've written a, a number of letters, four letters, to the president of the United States saying we need a change of policy, a change our mission from being on the front line to being trainers, redeploy our troops, make sure that the Iraqis pursue their responsibilities and pursue reconciliation, and have a...
REP. BOEHNER: That, that...
REP. HOYER: ...and have a diplomatic surge, not a troop surge.
REP. BOEHNER: Yeah, but Steny, that's exactly what the president's plan is. You outlined what you, what you just did in a speech over at Brookings last month.
REP. HOYER: Correct.
REP. BOEHNER: And if you look at what this plan is, it's not just a reinforcement of troops, it requires the Iraqis to put their military on the front line. It has social barometers, economic barometers. There, there, there's a-there's a wide plan, exactly how you've described it. But if you don't like the president's plan, Steny, what is your plan for success?
REP. HOYER: John, the-that's the good news. We've had 52 hearings in the last five weeks in the Senate and in the House. We went from a complacent House of Representatives that really gave no oversight to this war to a vigorous oversight of the policies that are being proposed and that have been affected. And what, John, we're going to do is, we're going, in the next 60 days that you talk about on the supplemental, on the authorization bill, on, on the appropriation bill, we're going to make recommendations. And those recommendations will be focused on success. We don't want to fail. President said in the State of the Union nobody voted for failure. I voted to authorize the president to take this action. I certainly didn't vote for failure.
But, Tim, unfortunately, the policies that are-been pursued by Rumsfeld, by Wolfowitz, by Bremer, by the president have failed and, in fact, have been predictors of failure.
MR. RUSSERT: How many...
REP. BOEHNER: But, but, but, Steny, Democrats have no plan for success in Iraq. And let's be-and let's be...
REP. HOYER: Now, you say that-you say that following our plan, John.
REP. BOEHNER: Let's be honest about it. What we're going to do this week is the first step in your effort to cut off funds for troops in harm's way and leave Iraq in chaos. And that's why...
REP. HOYER: No, our resolution does not say anything about cutting off funds, John.
REP. BOEHNER: Well, no, no. No, all the-you, you...
REP. HOYER: We're not going to cut off funds.
REP. BOEHNER: ...and the speaker, Murtha, and others have said, "Well, this is just a first step this coming week."
REP. HOYER: You didn't...
REP. BOEHNER: We all know-we all know what's coming in the next month or so when we have the supplemental spending bill up.
MR. RUSSERT: All right, let me get to that. But before I do, Congressman Hoyer, how many Democrats will vote for this resolution of disapproval?
REP. HOYER: I think almost every Democrat will vote for this resolution.
MR. RUSSERT: And how many Republicans?
REP. HOYER: You'd have to ask John. He perhaps counts better than I do on his side.
MR. RUSSERT: How many Republicans, how many...
REP. BOEHNER: We're going to-we're going to have Republicans who are skeptical of this plan who'll probably vote for this.
MR. RUSSERT: How many?
REP. BOEHNER: But-and while...
MR. RUSSERT: How many?
REP. BOEHNER: While we may lose the vote on this, we're-we will not lose the debate on this.
MR. RUSSERT: Well, will you lose a third of the Republicans?
REP. BOEHNER: I don't think we'll lose that many.
MR. RUSSERT: Ten percent?
REP. BOEHNER: I don't run the numbers.
REP. HOYER: Tim, let me say, we have...
MR. RUSSERT: Wait a minute. Congressman Boehner, you had said...
REP. BOEHNER: But why not give us an...
MR. RUSSERT: ...that this resolution would demoralize the troops. But the secretary of defense, Robert Gates, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said that's just not true.
REP. BOEHNER: Well, I understand what they said. I got an e-mail several nights ago from a lady named Lisa Bell Clay, used to work for me. And she left when her husband got transferred down to southern Virginia. He was a, a Marine. Now, he was killed in Iraq defending this country. She sent me an e-mail the other night to say, "Listen, I'm glad somebody's standing up to understand, to, to support our troops and to make sure that there's a long-term strategy for victory here.' Now, this is-we're, we're in a very serious fight. And I, I just finished reading last fall a-Lincoln, "Team of Rivals." And look at the number of times that Lincoln could've given up or should've given up. But he had a goal, the-hold the union together. And look at the difficulties of Franklin Roosevelt had during World War II. Now, he could've folded his tent and cut a deal, but he had a goal in mind of, of preserving freedom.
And the issue here is not just Iraq. Look at, look at what we do if we leave there in chaos and what, what the Iranians do. They're there stirring up the problems, to a large extent, in Iraq today. Their influence, they want to grow it in the greater Middle East. They're in there with Hezbollah...
MR. RUSSERT: So we stay...
REP. BOEHNER: ...in Lebanon.
MR. RUSSERT: ...there-we stay there endlessly.
REP. BOEHNER: I think that we have to find a way to help the Iraqis build a safe and secure Iraq.
REP. HOYER: John, we've been saying-for-that for a long period of time.
REP. BOEHNER: I know we have.
REP. HOYER: This is now four years that we've been at this effort and three and a half years after the president said the mission, whatever the mission was, was accomplished. Now we don't know what the mission is of these 21. Is it to stabilize it? How long are we going to stay there? And the overwhelming advice of our military is "This will not work," and so many of your members say this will not work.
MR. RUSSERT: Let me follow up on...
REP. HOYER: We need to move in a new direction.
MR. RUSSERT: Let me follow up on Congressman Boehner's point about cutting off funding.
REP. HOYER: Right.
MR. RUSSERT: Because John Murtha, a key member of your delegation, Mr. Hoyer, said this. "John Murtha (D-PA), a sharp critic of the war and chairman of the subcommittee that oversees defense funding, is separately preparing language to block money for the additional troops in Iraq unless the military meets certain readiness standards. He said he will introduce his proposal on March 15 as an attachment to Bush's request for Iraq war funding. 'The hope is we will affect the surge.'" And then this: "Murtha says he would probably [try] to block the use of funding to extend the tours of soldiers beyond one year. 'We're going to stop that,' [Murtha] said." So John Murtha, clearly, wants to cut off funding for this war...
REP. HOYER: No, no...
MR. RUSSERT: ...in some form or fashion.
REP. HOYER: If you read that carefully, what he said, "unless certain conditions are met." I think every American will agree with the conditions. Jack Murtha talked about this the other day. First of all, he doesn't want to send troops that aren't trained. He doesn't want to send troops that aren't fully equipped. And what he's saying is, if you're going to send troops, certify to us that they are fully trained and fully equipped. It was Murtha, after all, who found out that they didn't have sufficient body armor when they were sent to Iraq, they didn't have the armored humvees that they needed when they were sent to Iraq. I think the American public believes those are reasonable conditions prior to sending some of our people in harm's way.
MR. RUSSERT: But how about telling the commander in chief he's going to limit tours to one year for soldiers?
REP. HOYER: Well, I think the commander and chief and Rumsfeld, in particular, made a huge mistake in determining that they could do this on the cheap. It was supply-side war from their standpoint. You do less and get more. The fact of the matter is we didn't send enough troops initially, and it now is clear that one of the reasons we didn't is because we didn't contemplate the challenge that was confronting us. We didn't contemplate correctly how we were going to bring stability to Iraq, which has led to all of the adverse consequences that John speaks of. And, and thirdly, we did not contemplate that in prosecuting this war we were going to undermine every substantially our ability to confront terrorism in Afghanistan. All of which...
REP. BOEHNER: Steny, Steny, Steny.
REP. HOYER: ...was a, a very bad mistake.
REP. BOEHNER: If you're...
REP. HOYER: Senator Hagel says it's one of the biggest foreign policy mistakes he's seen in his lifetime.
REP. BOEHNER: Steny, if you're not going to cut off troops-cut off the funding for the troops in harm's way then why not allow Republicans to bring a resolution to the floor and let the House vote up or down on that resolution?
REP. HOYER: That's a good question, and you're going to have that opportunity. But initially...
REP. BOEHNER: When? When? When?
REP. HOYER: ...initially, the first thing we're going to do...
REP. BOEHNER: When? When?
REP. HOYER: Within the next 30, 45 days...
REP. BOEHNER: Well, see, that's the point-that's the point, Steny.
REP. HOYER: ...John. You got to have-well, John, you asked me a question.
REP. BOEHNER: You told your members...
REP. HOYER: Let me answer it. Let me answer it.
REP. BOEHNER: You told your members the other day...
REP. HOYER: John, let me answer the question.
REP. BOEHNER: ...this is the first step-this is the first step.
REP. HOYER: OK. I'm saying...
REP. BOEHNER: That's how you got them all together.
REP. HOYER: ...that we do not agree with the president's surge. The military doesn't agree, Maliki doesn't agree, the American people don't agree. And we're going to allow members with full debate, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday to let their-give their opinion and then to vote: Do you agree with the president's proposal? Republican president has made a proposal. The Congress is now going to be able to say...
REP. BOEHNER: On a nonbinding resolution.
REP. HOYER: ..we agree...
REP. BOEHNER: Let's have a real resolution on the floor. It's a bill that says, "We will not cut the funding for our troops in harms' way."
REP. HOYER: John, do you...
REP. BOEHNER: Let's have the-let's have that vote on the floor this week.
REP. HOYER: John, with all due respect, do you remember in 1995 when you voted for a nonbinding resolution not to send 20,000 troops to Bosnia?
REP. BOEHNER: That's correct. That's correct. That's before there were any troops sent, before any troops were in harm's way.
REP. HOYER: Well, it's a surge; they haven't been sent yet.
MR. RUSSERT: Congressman Boehner, the inspector general report about some of the intelligence that came out of the Pentagon extremely critical of that operation. Do you agree with the inspector general?
REP. BOEHNER: There's all kinds of debate about what the Pentagon was doing and what they-what-weren't doing. It's clear to all of us, Democrats and Republicans, that we have flawed intelligence. The CIA had bad intelligence, the Pentagon had bad intelligence. And, for that matter, all of our allies around the world had the same bad intelligence. And so that's why Republicans voted to set up the national intelligence directorate to reform our intelligence activities.
REP. HOYER: The 9/11 Commission, of course, recommended that. But, Tim, the real problem with this issue is, first of all, we asked for this report in '04. It's now coming out in '07. Secondly, what apparently happened here was the intelligence community reached a consensus, the deputy secretary, or assistant secretary of defense for policy, not for intelligence, decided he did not agree with that and forwarded his view rather than what the consensus of the intelligence community was. And...
MR. RUSSERT: So what do you do about it?
REP. HOYER: Well, I've, I've written, along with Mr. Skelton and Mr. Reyes, a letter to both Negroponte and Gates, the D.N.I., currently, going to be deputy secretary of state, and to the secretary of defense and said, "What's going on here? Why do we allow a secretary-assistant secretary a policy to subvert the intelligence advice that's being given to the commander in chief? That's wrong, and, and I don't know whether it led to miscalculations or not. There've been so many miscalculations, it's difficult to tell that this generated one of them. But the fact of the matter is, what was done was wrong. We want to get to the bottom of it.
MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to a domestic issue. In the front page of The New York Times today, talking about ethics and-dealing with lobbyists. Congress passed legislation, people said, "We're going to take money out of this system." And yet, look at this article. And I'll read it for you and our viewers: "Congress Finds Ways to Avoid Lobbyist Limits. The 110th Congress opened with the passage of new rules intended to curb the influence of lobbyists by prohibiting them from treating lawmakers to meals, trips, stadium box seats or the discounted use of private jets. But it did not take long for lawmakers to find ways to keep having lobbyist-financed fun. In just the last two months, lawmakers invited lobbyists to help pay for a catalog of outings: lavish birthday parties in a lawmaker's honor ($1,000 a lobbyist), martinis and margaritas at Washington restaurants (at least $1,000), a California wine-tasting tour (all donors welcome), hunting and fishing trips (typically $5,000), weekend golf tournaments ($2,500 and up), [and] a Presidents' Day weekend at Disney World ($5,000). ... The lobbyists and their employers typically end up paying for the events, but within the new rules. Instead of picking up the lawmaker's tab, lobbyists pay a political fund-raising committee set up by the lawmaker. In turn, the committee pays the legislator's way."
So rather than have the lobbyist fund the trip, you create a campaign committee. That campaign committee has this event, the lobbyist gives money to the campaign committee, and the campaign committee pays for the congressman's trip. It's just a way to circumvent a law you just passed.
REP. BOEHNER: Tim, we, we raise political money to run campaigns. Democrats do it, and Republicans do it. When, when we put in the campaign finance laws, the Shays-Meehan bill a number of years ago, I voted against it because I thought it was nonsense. I think what we ought to do is we ought to have full disclosure, full disclosure of all of the money that we raise and how it is spent. And I think that sunlight is the best disinfectant. But there, there are a number of different ways that we go about raising those funds. Some of these are golf events, some of them are, are receptions, some of them are dinners.
REP. HOYER: Tim, let...
MR. RUSSERT: Will you-will you try to close this loophole?
REP. HOYER: Tim, let me say that, in terms of this loophole, what we did when we came to the Congress, we adopted some ethics rules which are going to make sure that, first of all, you can't get meals, you can't live off lobbyists in Washington, D.C. Some members did that; some members are now out of Congress and in jail. You cannot have lobbyists or organizations pay for your travel on their private jets. We said that's not going to happen. You can't do it even with your own money. Now, as John pointed out, there is fund-raising. Fund-raisings usually have a reception, a dinner or an event of some type. That was not dealt with in those rules, and that'll be dealt with in the campaign finance rules. But, very frankly, the answer ultimately is if you're going to stop that, it's public financing. Neither the public nor the Congress is going to support public financing, so you're going to have fund-raising. So whatever way you do that is going to be subject to scrutiny. And I agree with John, public disclosure so the public knows what's going on is-until you get the public financing-the only way the public can check that.
REP. BOEHNER: There aren't any of my taxpayers who'll want their hard-earned tax money that they're paying to the government to be given to politicians so they can throw mud at each other.
REP. HOYER: I tend to agree with John that the public doesn't support that...
MR. RUSSERT: So this, this will...
REP. HOYER: ...for just those reasons.
MR. RUSSERT: This will go on?
REP. HOYER: Fund-raising's going to go on. So however it's-if you have a reception, Tim, as you know, you've been to some. If you have a...
MR. RUSSERT: Not-not political fund-raisers.
REP. HOYER: No, no...
MR. RUSSERT: I don't do political fund-raisers.
REP. HOYER: OK, fine, but you've been to receptions. And hardly anybody has just a fund-raiser, say send me money. They have an event. And they have, usually, food and drink at the event. That's the way the fund-raisers are carried out, as you know.
MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to the whole issue of Speaker Pelosi. When she became speaker, she was given access to an airplane because, after September 11th-president, vice president, speaker of the House, in terms of succession to the presidency-Speaker Dennis Hastert, her predecessor, was given a plane to fly back and forth to his district in Illinois. Speaker Pelosi lives in California, so it'd take a different kind of airplane to make that flight nonstop. The Republican National Committee put out this: "Pelosi's Power Trip: 'Non-Stop' Nancy Seeks Flight of Fancy." And your colleagues in the House, Mr. Boehner, "Republic Conference Chairman Adam Putnam of Florida said Mrs. Pelosi's request represents 'an arrogance of office that just defies common sense,' and called it 'a major deviation from the previous speaker.' Minority Whip Roy Blunt of Missouri called it a 'flying Lincoln bedroom.'" What's, what's that all about?
REP. BOEHNER: There's no question that the speaker, third in line to the president, ought to have the security of having a plane. The plane that was used for Mr., Mr. Hastert has a 4,000 nautical mile range. So the same plane could've been used by Ms. Pelosi. Where the concerns were elevated is when she started to talk about taking family, staff, the supporters, and other members on her trip with her. And I think the taxpayers ought to provide a plane for her and her close staff. But when you start talking about supporters and other members and friends, I don't think the taxpayers ought to be held accountable for that.
MR. RUSSERT: Now, the White House weighed in, and they're not usually willing to jump in on behalf of Nancy Pelosi's side, but this is what Tony Snow, the White House press secretary said: "This is a silly story and I think it's been unfair to the speaker." You agree?
REP. BOEHNER: Well, I think that, the fact that she didn't say much, most of what I know about this I read in the press. But again, when you start talking about taking supporters and friends and others, and that's why you need a bigger plane, I think there's got to be some line drawn. And I think that the G5 that the speaker used will get to California and back, and it's got 12 seats, plenty of room for her and her staff and security.
MR. RUSSERT: Why not a 12-seat plane, which would be a, a, a very small part of the cost of a much larger plane?
REP. HOYER: Tim, this is-this is much ado about nothing. Tony Snow, as you pointed out, said this is silly. The Republicans are frustrated because we've been so successful in the first month at doing our new direction, at doing six for '06. We had an average 62 Republicans vote for those bills, 124 for the bringing down college expenses for students and their families. The fact of the matter is, they were looking for something. The sergeant at arms suggested to the Defense Department that this was necessary for the speaker's security. The speaker didn't ask for this. All of this other stuff that's being added on is for political purposes, not for substantive purposes. Obviously, Speaker Hastert was flown to his destination, which was 1,000 miles closer than Ms. Pelosi's destination, and the Defense Department and the Secret Service or the Capitol police are making arrangements. Nancy Pelosi hasn't asked for this.
MR. RUSSERT: Before you go, Mr. Boehner, since 1994, you've been in the majority. What's it like suddenly being in a minority?
REP. BOEHNER: Well, Tim, I'm a realist. You know, I told my colleagues on 9:00 election night, I was in the dumps. At 10:00, I knew I had a new hand to play. And I've always been good about accepting reality as it is. It's not the funnest role, especially when, when they won't even let us have a substitute this week, won't let us have a-won't open up the House. Live up to your word.
REP. HOYER: Poor John.
REP. BOEHNER: But it's, it's frustrating, but my job as the Republican leader is to-is to help our members earn our way back to a majority. And, and that is the only way we're going to get there. We, we need to develop a, a-new Republican ideas to deal with the issues the American people care about.
REP. HOYER: Yeah, the American public voted for change. They're going to get change, and they are getting change. As I said, we've had 52 hearings on Iraq in the last five weeks. That's a change. That's opening up government. That's the transparency of which John spoke of a little earlier in a different context. We're going to continue to bring change, and we're going to give Republicans the opportunity to fully participate.
REP. BOEHNER: When?
REP. HOYER: John...
REP. BOEHNER: When?
REP. HOYER: John...
REP. BOEHNER: When? When? You've been saying that for, for, for a year.
REP. HOYER: John and...
REP. BOEHNER: We're, we're now six weeks into this.
REP. HOYER: John and his colleagues had the opportunity to come to all 52 hearings. Unlike us...
REP. BOEHNER: Not somebody on the floor.
REP. HOYER: ...that-on the floor.
REP. BOEHNER: Why don't we have-why don't you give us a vote this week?
REP. HOYER: Every Republican-Tim...
REP. BOEHNER: Give us a vote this week on whether you're going to cut off funding for troops.
REP. HOYER: Every Republican is going to have an opportunity to speak this week on the floor of the House of Representatives. We didn't...
REP. BOEHNER: But we don't get to vote on what we want to vote on.
REP. HOYER: We didn't-we didn't get that, John. You remember that, of course.
REP. BOEHNER: You got, we had the same...
MR. RUSSERT: All right. All right. To be continued. The Democratic leader, the Republican leader, thanks very much for sharing your views.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17065119/page/3/