[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 8594-8595]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

  (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to inquire of the majority leader the 
schedule for next week.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  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. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the information.
  Mr. Leader, you have listed for next week legislation regarding the 
10 percent tax bracket expansion. Is it safe to assume the bill will 
not be considered in the Committee on Ways and Means, but will come 
directly to the floor instead, just as was the case with the AMT bill 
last week and the marriage penalty bill the week before that?
  Mr. DeLAY. That is correct.
  Mr. HOYER. Will we be able to offer a substitute as we have in the 
past?
  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. HOYER. I appreciate the gentleman's observation. However, I might 
say that we believe fair is not gracious, but fair and appropriate.
  We appreciate their graciousness from time to time. I am trying to 
remember when that last happened. We appreciate the fact that it has 
been done and hope it will continue to be done.
  Am I correct in assuming that the week after next the child tax 
credit will be on the floor?
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, we are going to do the 10 percent bracket 
next week. Would it be safe to assume the week following we will do the 
child tax credit?
  Mr. DeLAY. That is correct. It is safe to assume that.
  Mr. HOYER. With respect to the associated health plans, the medical 
malpractice, and the flexible savings account bills, can you tell us 
what procedures will be employed for consideration of these three 
bills?
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I just had brief consultations with the 
chairman of the Committee on Rules, and he is inclined to recommend to 
his committee that the amendments to these bills be in the nature of a 
substitute.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Leader, can you tell me whether these bills will be in 
exactly the same form as they were when they passed the House last 
year.
  Mr. DeLAY. I am afraid I cannot answer that question. I have not read 
as of yet those three bills, so I cannot answer that question as 
compared to bills from last year.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Leader, can you call me when you do read them.
  Mr. Leader, would it be fair, and I see the chairman is on the floor, 
would it be fair to assume that these bills will not be considered in 
committee again?
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, 
that is correct. I am under the impression that H.R. 4279, the flexible 
spending accounts bill, has been considered in committee. But medical 
liability and the association health plan bills are bills that we have 
passed in this House before.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, although we have 
considered them before, you are not sure whether they are going to be 
in exactly the same form as when they last passed the House last year?
  Mr. DeLAY. If the gentleman would yield, ``exactly'' is too stringent 
a word for me to answer. Exactly, I do not know. I am advised that 
these two bills have passed the House floor and are substantially the 
same.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for 
his comments. Before yielding back my time and with the leader on the 
floor, Mr. Leader, I have said this before, I mean it as sincerely as I 
can say it: this side of the aisle intends to participate to the extent 
we are allowed in a bipartisan way to put forth and enhance the 
interests of this country.
  There are many of us on this side of the aisle who are supportive of 
our efforts in Iraq. We now have had, unfortunately, two instances, the 
instance we just dealt with today and the instance of support of the 
troops some weeks ago, in which essentially this side of the aisle was 
not included in those deliberations. This is not an issue about 
process. It is an issue about substance because substantively we want 
to project to the world the unanimity that you have indicated on the 
floor you would like to effect as well.
  In light of that, Mr. Leader, I would respectfully request that as we 
consider issues of great importance and gravity as it relates to the 
prosecution of our efforts in fighting terrorism and in Iraq, efforts 
which we ought to be united on notwithstanding our differences in terms 
of implementation and success of our troops and our objectives, that 
you and the leaders on your side of the aisle give us the time and the 
opportunity to be included so that they may in fact be, notwithstanding 
the votes, but in actuality be bipartisan. I thank the gentleman for 
consideration of that.
  We have been disappointed that that has not occurred. We have 
lamented that fact on numerous pieces of legislation. We do not believe 
it is in the best interest of the American public; but when we are 
dealing with domestic issues, that is not as important. But it is 
critically important in dealing with the issues of international policy 
of our troops abroad, their safety, security, and the support we give 
to them. So we would urge that those items perhaps be treated more 
sensitively as it relates to the interests of the minority and the role 
of the minority in forging those resolutions and policy statements. I 
appreciate the majority leader's consideration of that request.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  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

[[Page 8595]]

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. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I will take a back seat 
to no one. You, Mr. Leader, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), 
or anybody else in this House on support of the troops, support of our 
efforts, and support of this country, period. But we do see things 
differently, Mr. Leader.
  I think I have a reputation in this body of being able to work in a 
bipartisan fashion with the speaker, with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Ney) with whom I worked as ranking member on the Committee on House 
Administration, with the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), and with 
others.

                              {time}  1530

  And, yes, Mr. Leader, with you on some very issues of great 
importance to this institution. And I continue to be in that posture, 
but, yes, we do see it differently. The leader got, at 10 p.m. last 
night, the opportunity to review this in a meaningful way
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, that is exactly when I got it, too.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, this was of great import. Every speaker that 
came to the floor expressed outrage, expressed deep concern about what 
this had done and the impact it would have on America and our image 
abroad but, more importantly than our image, on our ability to continue 
to lead on issues of freedom and justice and human rights throughout 
the world. At 10 p.m., whether it was same time he got it or not, I 
would suggest to the leader is not a time frame in which we can 
thoughtfully try to reach a bipartisan agreement.
  We do not expect nor do we ask for you to accept without question our 
position or our changes. But we do expect to have the opportunity to 
discuss them. I did not have an opportunity to discuss it with you, the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), or the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Hunter). I saw the resolution at 9 a.m. this morning. I had no 
ability to put input nor did others. And the gentleman from Missouri 
(Mr. Skelton), I think, is on the floor and I would be glad to yield to 
him if he would want to make a comment.
  If not, in my discussions with the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Skelton), he believes there was not the full opportunity that he would 
have liked to have considered in a bipartisan fashion. And that 
committee, as you well know, and that gentleman from Missouri has been 
one of the most bipartisan Members of the House.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  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. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I have been in a position 
where I was one of four voting against something if I thought it was 
appropriate to do. So he can keep saying there were only 50 as long he 
wants. There should have been zero. His side believes that and our side 
believes that. Our side is as deeply committed to supporting the troops 
as is his side. That is good news of this day. Everyone has expressed 
that.
  It does not serve our purposes further, related to staff here, they 
did not get a draft from their perspective until after 6 p.m. last 
night when, as you know, we had adjourned. I was at the Fire Service 
Caucus with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), with whom I 
work in lockstep, and have for 13 to 14 years in a bipartisan way. We 
understand bipartisanship. We have a Fire Service bill on this floor 
totally bipartisan.
  So I understand bipartisanship, Mr. Speaker. It does not serve our 
purpose to further discuss procedures. I agree on that. We have a 
different view. But what it does serve our purposes for is trying to 
come together not in a way that will divide the House, but in a way 
that will bring the House together. That, I believe, is the best 
interest of our country. I would hope we could do that, and I will work 
with the gentleman to accomplish that objective, and I presume he will 
work with me as well.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  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. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments.

                          ____________________