[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 27 (Friday, February 10, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H1586]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[[Page H1586]]
 DISCUSSION OF REGULATORY REFORM BILL IN GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE

  (Mr. FAZIO of California asked and was given permission to address 
the House for 1 minute.)
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I know we have been able to 
reach agreement apparently on this rule and I know people would people 
would like to have no further votes so we can move on. It is after all 
Friday. But I am told by members of the Committee on Government Reform 
and Oversight that they have run into a rather difficult problem within 
their committee. They have been told by the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Clinger], the chairman, that they have to put out the regulatory 
reform bill this afternoon or waive their rights to a 3-day layover if 
it were to be taken up on Monday.
  I think on behalf of the minority, we find that a rather difficult 
choice to have to make, one that really truncates our ability to have 
full debate and full consideration of this very important legislation 
on regulatory relief.
  I am wondering if we could hear from those on the majority side about 
how we could accommodate those concerns. We understand the schedule you 
are trying to keep, but this is one of the most important bills to come 
out of that committee in this session. Perhaps the majority leader may 
wish to respond or the majority whip. I am not sure. I know the 
majority whip has a great interest in this bill.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FAZIO of California. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I understand the gentleman's concern and as 
we have during this entire process ever since January 4, we have been 
diligently trying to, and have protected the rights of the minority. We 
are running into scheduling problems. We are trying to get this bill 
out. We do not want to limit any kind of opportunities for Members to 
offer amendments. But as we have seen on other bills and we feel that 
at least on this particular bill that there are an inordinate number of 
amendments to the moratorium bill, a moratorium bill that gives the 
President the right to actually exempt regulations.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. If the gentleman would allow me to reclaim 
my time, the question of what is an inordinate amount is often in the 
eye of the beholder.
  Mr. DeLAY. That is true. And the majority beholder thinks that there 
are a lot of amendments that really have nothing to do with the bill 
and could be construed as being a little dilatory. We are just trying 
to accommodate the minority in trying to say, look, we will go through 
the whole process and allow you to offer all amendments and keep the 
process open, but we would appreciate you working with us and maybe, in 
order to accommodate the schedule and not be here late at night and 
through weekends, be able to ask the minority if laying the bill out 
for the 3 days could be accommodated.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. If the gentleman would allow me to continue, 
the Members I think are already expecting to spend Saturdays here in 
March. That word is all over the institution, so we all know we are 
running up against deadlines. But we cannot let those deadlines get in 
the way of due deliberation. To say that that bill has to be put out 
today I think really stretches.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FAZIO of California. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DeLAY. We want due deliberation, but as the gentleman knows, from 
the time a bill gets out of committee to the time it gets to the floor, 
it could be 10 days in order to protect the minority's right of 
allowing a bill to sit around for 3 days for comments before it gets to 
rules, and then after rules it lays for 3 days before it can come to 
the floor. We are just saying that maybe we could do a little 
negotiating here and the committee could deliberate and take all 
amendments if the minority would only allow it to lay out 2 days.

                              {time}  1400

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bliley). Perhaps the distinguished 
gentleman from California and the majority whip might retire and 
negotiate.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, if we could proceed for \1/2\ 
minute, it would seem to me if the leadership would proceed to 
communicate with our leadership about how we are going to handle this 
bill in committee, to give our members adequate time to offer 
amendments that are in fundamental ways important to what is one of the 
most significant bills we are going to deal with in the first 100 days, 
let alone this Congress, then I think perhaps we could continue in the 
commodious way we have been. I am sorry to say that we may have to have 
votes on this noncontroversial rule if we do not have that kind of a 
dialog.
  Mr. DeLAY. If the gentleman will yield briefly, I am looking forward 
to negotiating with the gentleman. We just thought, maybe wrongly, that 
the chairman of the committee and the ranking member could do that kind 
of negotiations for the committee, but if it takes the leadership level 
of negotiations we are happy to do it.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. I think it may have been elevated.

                          ____________________