[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 22 (Friday, February 3, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H1196-H1197]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                              {time}  1520
   PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2, LINE-ITEM VETO ACT

  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during further 
consideration of H.R. 2 pursuant to House Resolution 55 the Chairman of 
the Committee of the Whole may postpone until a time during further 
consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded 
vote on any amendment, and that the Chairman of the Committee of the 
Whole may reduce to not less than 5 minutes the time for voting by 
electronic device on any postponed question that immediately follows 
another vote by electronic device without intervening business, 
provided that the time for voting by electronic device on the first in 
any series of questions shall be not less than 15 minutes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I will 
not object, but I want to inquire of the majority leader, it is my 
understanding that what we are trying to arrange here is a system for 
voting, in consideration of the rest of the line-item veto bill on 
Monday, so we can start at 2 p.m., have amendments with a 30-minute 
time limit for the amendments that are left, have an hour time limit on 
the substitutes that are left, that we would not begin the 
consideration of the Stenholm substitute until 5 o'clock, and that the 
order of voting when the voting would begin would be on the amendments 
first and then ending finally with the Stenholm substitute, and then on 
to final passage of the bill. Is that generally a correct statement?
  Mr. ARMEY. If the gentleman will yield, the gentleman is absolutely 
correct.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Foley). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Texas?
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I would just 
like to engage the distinguished majority leader in a short colloquy 
about the family-friendly nature of the schedule and also the 
productivity and effectiveness of the congressional schedule.
  Many of us, as the gentleman from Texas knows, are frustrated with 
the current schedule, whether we have young children, whether we are on 
the east coast, the west coast, or in the Midwest. We see we are 
starting voting at 5 o'clock and 6 o'clock at night. We are all working 
70 or 80 hours a week, but we are working many of these in the middle 
of the night where we never see our families. We are having votes 
overlap between committees on floor votes. Certainly the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas is as frustrated as anybody with this schedule, 
and while a bipartisan committee was appointed to work on this for the 
first 100 days, I did not sign that resolution on the bipartisan 
committee because I was afraid this would happen. It has happened. We 
have got angry and angrier families.

                              {time}  1530

  I am hopeful, if the majority leader would commit to working with us 
as he has in the past on improving this, if not immediately, then 
sometime in the next 90 days.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  [[Page H1197]] Mr. ROEMER. Further reserving the right to object, I 
yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. ARMEY. The gentleman is absolutely correct about the 
frustrations. Certainly I felt it, too. I stand before you as a man who 
is a half-hour late already with a date that I have with the most 
beautiful woman I have known, and we feel these frustrations every day.
  But I must say that, given what I have seen today as what I believe 
is a real breakthrough in relations with the work and the help of the 
minority leader and certainly the cooperation we have gotten from the 
distinguished ranking member of the committee on this effort, I believe 
we have got an opportunity to alleviate all of this tension and 
frustration in the future, and I am looking forward to moving on with 
the completion of this week, the beginning of next week under much more 
favorable conditions than we anticipated just a few short hours before, 
and I think more smoothly throughout the rest of this Congress.
  Mr. ROEMER. Further reserving the right to object, so I can ascertain 
from the gentleman's remarks, that after the contract and the first 100 
days is over, he is going to be working on spending more time with this 
beautiful lady after those 100 days and we can get that as a solid 
commitment?
  Mr. ARMEY. Yes, if the gentleman will yield, not only that, you with 
your beautiful children and your wife as well.
  Mr. ROEMER. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I will 
not object, I wanted to say I misspoke in my explanation of the 
arrangement in saying all the amendments would have 30 minutes. It is 
my understanding that we are intending to have 1 hour for the Orton 
amendment alone.
  Mr. ARMEY. Absolutely. That is correct. And I will have this in the 
request I am about to make.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Foley). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________