Tom DeLay

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, next week the House will convene on Tuesday at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour debates and 2 p.m. for legislative business. We will consider several measures under suspension of the rules. A final list of those bills will be sent to Members' offices by the end of this week. Any votes called on these measures will be rolled until 6:30 p.m. on Tuesday. For Wednesday and the balance of the week, we plan to consider several bills that address the impact of health care costs and American job creation and economic prosperity: H.R. 7249, flexible spending accounts; H.R. 4280, medical liability reform; and H.R. 4281, association health plans. In addition, we will also consider H.R. 4275, which would permanently extend the 10 percent individual income tax bracket. Finally, I would like to remind all Members that we do expect to have votes next Friday, May 14. Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to answer any questions.

Mr. DeLAY. That is correct.

Mr. DeLAY. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I think we have demonstrated on these bills as we move along, the Committee on Rules has been very gracious in allowing substitutes, but I do not want to assume or influence the Committee on Rules as to what they may or may not do.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the gentleman.

Mr. DeLAY. That is correct. It is safe to assume that.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman sees it a little differently than I do. The gentleman says there was no consultation on this particular resolution. Nothing could be further from the truth. This leader asked the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services to write a resolution on an event that started 1 week ago, so we could not do it much sooner than this week. At the beginning of this week, we asked the Committee on Armed Services to write a resolution and admonished the chairman to reach out to the Democrats and the ranking member in order to write that resolution. The staff and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) worked diligently together and came up with a draft yesterday that was sent to legislative counsel. That draft was given then to the leadership, to the minority leader's office, to the Speaker's office, and to my office for consultation. The minority leader's office came back and wanted to eliminate two clauses in the resolution. I would be glad to read the gentleman the clauses they wanted to eliminate, and it was very surprising to us that the minority leader wanted to remove two clauses congratulating the good work done by our troops in Iraq, and the minority leader wanted to add an additional clause that had nothing to do with the tone or the substance of the resolution. We rejected adding a clause that had nothing to do with the tone or substance of the resolution and offered to remove the two clauses that they had objections to. That is when they walked away from the table, asked the ranking member to remove his name from the resolution, and that is the resolution that came to the floor. I do not know how much more bipartisan we can get than that. Unfortunately, some people's definition of bipartisan is to buy into our partisanship or we will go home and not negotiate. That is exactly what happened in this process. If the gentleman has another way of reaching out and working together where we can come to some resolution, than I am more than open to working out a way to get these very important resolutions, as the gentleman says, to the floor in a bipartisan way. But I also point out to the gentleman that only 50 Members of this House, including the minority leader and the gentleman voted against this resolution; 365 Members voted for this resolution, and I call that bipartisan.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, that is exactly when I got it, too.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I do not quite understand that because the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) wrote the draft. It was done by late yesterday afternoon. It was sent to the legislative counsel. The entire draft was done, their agreed-to draft, both the Democrat ranking member, Republican chairman putting together a draft, coming together, and having done that, then it was vetted with the leadership. How much time does one need? After they finish writing the draft, do they sit around and wait? For what? The two gentlemen that were charged with writing the resolution came together, wrote a resolution that they both put their name on and had agreed to; then it was given to the leadership staff and the leaders, and then that is when the leader wanted to eliminate two clauses and insert another clause. We agreed to eliminate the two clauses. We did not agree to insert the third clause, and that is when negotiation and bipartisanship, which, by the way, that only 50 voted against the resolution, broke down. Evidently 365 Members thought it was a very well-crafted bipartisan effort.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to work with the gentleman because the gentleman has shown good faith in trying to work in a bipartisan way.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, the only thing confusing seniors are Democrats trying to confuse seniors about their ability to prescription drugs through a discount card. I think it is unfortunate that the Democrats have chosen confusion and misleading the seniors and getting lower prescription drugs as available to them through the new strengthening and improvement of the Medicare system. Our Members have been home talking to seniors. To answer the question how will seniors be able to choose, our Members are home helping seniors go through the system and choosing the kind of discount card and the kind of program that best benefits them, rather than trying to confuse them. But, Mr. Speaker, I came here to talk about something a little bit different. Mr. Speaker, every year for 1,000 different reasons, and all of them our fault, American families are squeezed by the invisible grip of hidden taxes. These are laws and regulations, all of which are well intentioned, that cost our economy billions of dollars, billions of man hours and millions of new jobs. In addition to income taxes, customers and consumers are stuck with regulatory compliance costs, litigation costs, interest payments on the national debt, and governmental waste, fraud and abuse. And all of these are eventually passed on to unsuspecting consumers in the form of higher prices. This week the House will take up two bills specifically targeting some of those hidden taxes. The first of these will be the Middle Class Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act from the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons). This legislation will protect 11 million working families and individuals from the unintended consequences of the Democrat-designed AMT, a tax provision preventing the wealthy from dodging their tax liability through creative accounting. Unfortunately, many middle income families have so benefited from Republican tax relief in 2001 and 2003, that the AMT now considers them rich. Now, while deep down many Democrats may indeed consider a family earning $45,000 per year to be rich, the majority of the people in this country, and thankfully in this body, have a more realistic view of 21st century economics. The Simmons bill is the first step towards making sure that the AMT only applies to those people it was designed to cover, not working families just trying to enjoy the fruits of their labor. Also this week, Mr. Speaker, in the House we plan to take up the conference report on one of the strongest, most disciplined budgets Congress has passed in two decades. It meets our present and reemerging needs while holding a firm line on discretionary spending. By setting a course of fiscal responsibility even in a time of war, we are giving the American people an opportunity to grow our economy back into balance, thereby protecting them from any more hidden taxes in the future. Mr. Speaker, for generations Americans have been saddled with taxes that are too high and a government that is not responsive enough. This week we will take two small steps toward solving both of those problems.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. I am not sure of tomorrow.

Mr. DeLAY. I would just say to the gentleman that we have a full week of work lined up. Hopefully if things go the way that we anticipate them going, we would be here on Thursday, but not on Friday.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished whip from Maryland for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I would like to make all the Members aware that the House has completed voting for the day and the week. Regarding next week's schedule, the House will convene on Tuesday at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business. We will consider several measures under suspension of the rules. A final list of those bills will be sent to the Members' offices by the end of the week. Any votes called on these measures will be rolled until 6:30 p.m. on Tuesday. On Wednesday and Thursday the House will convene at 10 a.m. We plan to consider H.R. 4227, the Middle Class Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act, which would increase the amount of income exempt from the individual AMT, thereby ensuring that hundreds of thousands of middle class taxpayers are not hit with a hidden tax increase next year. Finally, I would like to remind all Members that we do not plan to have any votes next Friday, May 7. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I will be happy to answer any questions he may have.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman for yielding, and I really cannot speak to any discussions the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) or the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) have had, either amongst themselves or with their Senate counterparts. What I can tell the gentleman is that the Speaker, being Speaker of the House, is defending his prerogative to appoint conferees to represent the House. And before he takes that formal step, he would like to establish some general parameters, or understandings, with the President, getting some sense from the President of what kind of bill he will sign. The Speaker is not negotiating with the President. The Speaker is holding a meeting of high-level, not committee-level people, putting together and trying to understand, because there has been some confusion as to what the President will or will not accept, before the Speaker appoints conferees.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield.

Mr. DeLAY. I thank the gentleman for yielding, Mr. Speaker, and I would just point out to the gentleman that the transportation bill has always been a very bipartisan bill. I would not expect anything different in the process of going through the conference committee and meetings of the conferees than has been in the past. Both sides of the aisle here and both sides of the rotunda are very interested in keeping that bipartisanship, so I would be very surprised and would oppose having meetings that did not include everybody that was appointed to the conference committee.

Mr. DeLAY. If the gentleman will yield, all I can inform the gentleman of as far as negotiations, of which I am not privy, they are fluid and ongoing and constant. There has been a lot of discussion, as the gentleman knows, particularly over the last few weeks and more specifically over the last few days. No resolution has been decided. No conclusion has been reached. Those negotiations will continue. This will likely sound redundant to the gentleman, but my answer is basically the same as I gave him last week. Our Budget Committee chairman advises me that there is a very good chance that we could have a conference report on the floor next week. I am hoping that will be the case.

Mr. DeLAY. I think we will probably proceed the same as we did on the bill today that just passed. The AMT bill has passed this House before. It has been marked up by the Committee on Ways and Means before. I do not know how many times. The Committee on Ways and Means feels that there is nothing new here and that the House should consider it as soon as possible, and that is why they want to bring it here, straight to the floor through the Committee on Rules. I would assume that is what the process will be.

Mr. DeLAY. I want to be very careful here because I have not seen the bill as introduced. In fact, I am not sure the bill has been introduced as of yet. I am very careful as to what I can say is in it because I have not seen it. All I know is that discussions that I have been privy to, the last I was advised is that the AMT bill is for 1 year.