Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1099, I call up from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 6111) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that the Tax Court may review claims for equitable innocent spouse relief and to…
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1099, I call up from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 6111) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that the Tax Court may review claims for equitable innocent spouse relief and to suspend the running on the period of limitations while such claims are pending, with a Senate amendment thereto, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1099, I offer a motion.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, to make sure that Members understand what we are doing, and, quite frankly, why we are doing it today rather than yesterday, is that we are considering H.R. 6111. H.R. 6111 is a bill that passed the House on suspension by voice vote on December 5. It then passed the Senate by unanimous consent with an amendment yesterday, December 7.
We are doing this as the House of Representatives to assist the Senate under its rules to facilitate the handling of the amendment we are now discussing, and we are doing this because given the Senate rules, they
would require a 2-day layover, two cloture votes and a number of other procedures. By doing this this way, we will save them a day and a cloture vote. Once again, the courtesy and kindness of the House is assisting the Senate in accomplishing the work of the Congress.
So, if you will please understand, the gentleman from New York and I will lead a discussion on the amendment to H.R. 6111. In fact, the amendment is as though the entire text of H.R. 4608, the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, is before us. In addition to that, there are several other provisions that accompany the Tax and Health Care Relief Act.
So, notwithstanding the merits of H.R. 6111, the discussion will be on the so-called tax extenders bill; the energy extenders bill; Medicare, the so-called doctors fix; the health care provisions; certain wilderness designations; some tariff procedures and other items which will in fact be the subject of the debate we are about to be engaged in.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Perhaps again it is necessary to underscore the fact that the procedure we are going through is not the choice of the House. The current minority leader, to be the majority leader, and I know I am violating the rules when I say the gentleman from Nevada, personally called and asked that we engage in this procedure to assist the Senate. I do hope the gentleman from New York, when he assumes his majority rule, will see fit to accommodate even Members of the other party in making sure that the people's work is done in the most reasonable fashion possible.
So, yes, it seems a little bit complicated, but it is in large part because both the Democratic and the Republican leadership of the Senate asked for our assistance in doing it this way.
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.
(Mr. HAYWORTH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, so that people again understand the process, notwithstanding the fact we are dealing with what amounts to a tax bill, because of the unusual procedure of using H.R. 6111 as a vehicle, asked for by the bipartisan leadership of the Senate and provided by us as a courtesy, there would be no motion to recommit available to the minority. This is a substantive amendment which is functioning as a substitute for the motion to recommit.
It has been indicated to me directly by that bipartisan leadership and those individuals I mentioned that if what was to be a motion to recommit and which will now be a substantive amendment passes, in their opinion, this bill will not be able to move through the Senate.
It may surprise the gentleman from Massachusetts to know that I agree with virtually everything he said and would like to add additional items in terms of the OCS provision. In fact, an Outer Continental Shelf measure passed the House. The measure that is currently carried in this amendment is totally isomorphic, exactly the same as the Outer Continental Shelf legislation that passed the Senate, that the Senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton, that the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid, and others supported 71-25. Need I say, this is an additional courtesy that the House is providing.
If, in fact, Mr. Markey's amendment passes, everything we will be talking about for the rest of the time on this amendment will be moot.
Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), an extremely valued member of the Ways and Means Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate people and their passion getting a bit carried away.
This bill was signed into law by the last Democratic President, Mr. Clinton. It was on your watch. To stand in the well and tell us what is in the amendment that is going to be offered in a short time, after being criticized that they have only had 2 days on the content of our amendment, is absolutely unbelievable.
We made this amendment in order because you didn't have the right to the motion to recommit. The Rules Committee out of courtesy asked you, could we have a copy of your amendment? You told the Rules Committee ``No, you couldn't have a copy of the amendment.''
Mr. Markey earlier described your amendment as having more than one item. Mr. Hinchey talked about it being OCS. Mr. Markey said it was OCS and it was AMT and it may be something else.
What amazes me is that they can stand there with a straight face and criticize us because they only got the copy, the absolute legislative language, 2 days ago on our bill, and they have the audacity to go to the well and describe their amendment and what it is when they won't even give us a copy of it. Now, this is a preview of the coming majority in terms of their saying one thing and doing another. Buckle your seat belts. The piety and the arguments about how correct they are and how unfair it is was just said. This was done by this Congress, it was signed by President Clinton, and we have no idea what is in your amendment because you didn't even offer the courtesy of giving us the language of your amendment notwithstanding the fact that we gave you the privilege of offering an amendment. Now, that is what this is about. Okay?
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), a member of the committee.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, this is the third Member on the other side of the aisle who spoke passionately about an amendment that apparently they have had time to write, circulate and read. We have not been presented with that amendment. Obviously, with some fervor, I indicated that I didn't think that probably was the fair thing to do. They now know how the majority feels, having given them the right to offer an amendment. My assumption is that continued refusal to provide us with a copy of the amendment is willful.
Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
That was 2 days ago. What are you doing for me lately?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Massachusetts for providing the majority with the amendment.
Frankly, I was rather baffled why my friend from New York would yield half their time to the gentleman from Massachusetts since he has time under his own amendment. Having now seen the amendment, I find it interesting that it is an 11-page amendment, a portion of a page is on research credits, a portion of a page is on the alternative minimum tax. The Outer Continental Shelf portion of the 11-page bill, which has been the sole focus of my friends on the other side of the aisle, is six lines. Not six pages, six lines.
What in the world is in the rest of the 11-page bill: Eight pages address putting back into this, over the objections of the Democratic leader on the Senate side, the New York railroad bond provision. I now understand why Mr. Markey got his 15 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), the chairman of the Health Subcommittee.
Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield on my time?
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman because I do appreciate the remarks that he just made. And we probably had not planned on highlighting it, but as the gentleman from Louisiana well knows, another portion of the changes that we are making in this package is to take what was known as the Katrina GO Zone, a benefit, and, after the time has passed, focus the money on those counties that still remain devastated by a high percentage of destruction. Rather than simply having money go where it may not be necessary, a portion of this bill focuses the money where it is absolutely necessary. And as the gentleman from Louisiana well knows, there are still major areas of his State and other States that can easily be defined as devastated.
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure now to yield 2 minutes to a valued member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).
Mr. Speaker, at this time I will place a letter in the Record which is a clarification sought by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) to me.
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, December 8, 2006.
Representative J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: We would like to clarify the intent of
certain provisions in Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006,
Mr. Speaker, at this time the Chair would recognize the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite) for 2 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, the Chair appreciates the vigor of the gentleman from Ohio on 6 lines out of an 11-page amendment.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) for 1\1/2\ minutes.
