[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 31 (Thursday, February 16, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H1890-H1891]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

  (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute.)
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of my request is to inquire 
about the schedule for next week.
  I yield to the gentleman from Texas, the distinguished majority 
leader.
  Mr. ARMEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  With respect to next week, Mr. Speaker, the House will not be in 
session on Monday, February 20.
  The House will be in session on Tuesday, February 21. Subject to 
unanimous-consent request, the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for 
morning hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business. At 5 p.m., we will 
take up the rule for H.R. 831, the Permanent Extension of the 25 
Percent Health Insurance Deduction for Self-Employed Individuals. We 
will then move into general debate and complete consideration of the 
bill. This is important, Mr. Speaker: We expect no votes until 5 p.m. 
on Tuesday. However, we will complete consideration of H.R. 831 on 
Tuesday. Members should be advised that the House may work late on 
Tuesday night.
  On Wednesday, February 22, the House will meet at 11 a.m. for the 
legislative business. We will take up the rule for the Department of 
Defense supplemental and the rescission package which accompanies it, 
and then move into general debate. We will complete consideration of 
the two bills and then possibly take up H.R. 830, the Paperwork 
Reduction Act, subject to the House's approval of a rule. Members 
should be advised that the House may work late on Wednesday night.
  On Thursday, February 23, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for 
legislative business, and pending the outcome of the previous day's 
action on H.R. 830, we will take up the rule for H.R. 450, the 
Regulatory Transition Act of 1995, and then move into general debate on 
the measure.
  On Friday, February 24, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for 
legislative business. At that time we will complete consideration of 
H.R. 450. It is our hope to complete legislation by 3 that afternoon.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, perhaps I could ask a 
few questions.
  First on staying late. The gentleman said perhaps on Tuesday and on 
Wednesday. By ``late,'' can you give Members a sense of about what 
time?
  Mr. ARMEY. If the gentleman will yield further, these things are 
always problematic. But I think I generally hope when I say ``late,'' 
that I mean around 9 p.m.
  What we try to do is measure the rate at which we are getting the 
work done, juxtapose that against what must need be done the next day, 
and then set a mark as early as we can that will assure us to be able 
to
 complete the next day's work. But by ``late,'' I hope that I can 
always have some confidence that that means 9. As the gentleman knows, 
that has not always worked out that way.

  Mr. GEPHARDT. Can the gentleman say that he expects to start 
amendments on H.R. 450 on Thursday? Do you intend to get to the 
amendments on that bill on Thursday?
  Mr. ARMEY. If the gentleman will yield, the answer is yes.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. The other question really involves the rules and maybe 
the distinguished gentleman from the Committee on Rules could be 
involved in this discussion.
  We last week met with the requirement to deal with an open rule but 
in 
[[Page H1891]] a constrained time period of 10 hours. I don't want to 
go over that debate again. I think we have well covered that from both 
viewpoints. But I guess I am asking what we can expect on the rules 
next week.
  What kind of a rule would the gentleman expect on the defense 
supplemental and the rescission bills? Will they be governed under one 
rule and will that rule be open and be time limited? And the rule on 
the regulatory transition moratorium, would that be an open rule and 
would it be time limited?
  Mr. SOLOMON. If the gentleman will yield, the two rescission bills, 
we have not put out a rule as the gentleman knows and we will not be 
doing that until a rule meeting that I will call sometime late Tuesday 
afternoon or evening. We would probably have a time constraint on that.
  The rule that we will be putting out as far as the regulatory reform, 
we have not discussed that yet. I assume there would be an open rule 
with time constraints, again because of the problem as we approach the 
April 8 date. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey] our majority leader, 
and the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich] our Speaker, have said we 
have to stick to the schedule to make sure we are going to get the 
Members out by that 3-week break period.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Reclaiming my time, you are saying in both the case of 
the supplemental and the rescission bills and the case of regulatory 
transition, you are anticipating, and I understand you have not done it 
yet, but you are anticipating open rules with time restraints?
  Mr. SOLOMON. That is what we have in mind. Again, with consultation 
with the minority, we will keep in touch with you and make that 
determination early next week.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Finally, maybe I did not hear it. I was asking about 
whether the defense supplemental and the rescission bills would be 
governed under one rule.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Yes, they will. They will be brought to the floor under 
one rule, and debated the same day.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Kanjorski].
  Mr. KANJORSKI. For purpose of inquiry to the majority leader, Mr. 
Leader, as you know last week I expressed my great concern about having 
markups on very important bills in the committee and having amendments 
on the floor to legislation going at the same time and I felt that we 
were losing the benefit of the deliberative nature of the House of 
Representatives.
  I have conceded as I have indicated before that we will probably 
suffer that as long as we are under the constraints to accomplish 
something for public relations over 100 days as opposed to substantive 
legislative purposes.
  Knowing that to be the case, however, the rumors circulating in the 
House, it is the intention of the majority to interfere with what I 
call communications of representatives with their district, in that you 
intend to hold the House in session on Saturdays during the month of 
March. Is that correct?
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEPHARDT. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. ARMEY. Let me begin by observing that the gentleman's point is 
taken.
  Mr. Speaker, we are working on a March schedule. We have a great deal 
of work to do and we have, as you know, a very compressed time period 
in which to do it. We are working on a March schedule. We are trying to 
consult with everybody and take into consideration a very wide range of 
concerns, not the least of which are the physical demands of the 
schedule on our Members. We have every hope and intention of avoiding 
working on weekends, Saturdays and Sundays in March, or for that matter 
we would hope at all.
  Clearly it is our hope and our design to avoid that. We think that is 
possible and I am very optimistic.
  Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman further yield?
  Mr. GEPHARDT. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. KANJORSKI. That is not quite the Shermanesque statement I had 
hoped to get from the majority leader. It seems to me the majority 
leader is saying that the 100 days is more important than allowing the 
membership to communicate with our constituents. We have given up the 
thought process in the House, we have given up our deliberative 
activity in the House. I do not think it is fair to the American people 
or the traditions of this institution to give up the ability to 
communicate with our constituents on weekends.
  Is there some magic in this 100 days that we could not continue and 
not have a 3-week break in April, and make it a 2-week break or a 1-
week break so that we could continue over the period of March and April 
to communicate with our constituents?
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEPHARDT. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. ARMEY. Again the gentleman's point is taken.
  I can only tell the gentleman, we have made it very clear, we have a 
contract, we feel strongly about our commitment. We are certainly 
committed to doing a big job, a big change. We know it is hard work. We 
intend to keep that commitment.
  The gentleman should be advised that it should hardly come as any new 
news to anyone that these circumstances are existent and they will be 
met.
  We intend to meet the completion of this legislative agenda in the 
appointed time with all due respect and with every bit of sensitive 
consideration for the needs of the Members.
                              {time}  1440

  And we will do the best we can do to get that done. And again, I do 
the best, if the gentleman will yield further, Mr. Speaker, I do the 
best I can to control what I can control and to deal with what I cannot 
control.
  Mr. KANJORSKI. Just a final request.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. KANJORSKI. I indicated about 2 weeks ago on the floor that I do 
not think there is going to be any surprise that the majority 
entertains a majority of approximately 240 votes more or less, and that 
all of the legislation the majority wishes to adopt in the House of 
Representatives will be able to be completed and concluded to its 
intentions.
  It seems to me that rather than now interfere with our relationship 
and our communications with our constituents, since the debate process 
really is not for the purposes of communicating with our constituents, 
or educating our constituents or ourselves for that matter, why do we 
not just move along with the 100-day contract over the next 2 weeks, 
bring it in under an hour closed rule and have it adopted so that we 
can get this foolishness out of the way and get on to the serious 
substantial business of the House of Representatives.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, will the Speaker yield?
  Mr. GEPHARDT. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. ARMEY. If the gentleman could get his leadership on his side to 
endorse his procedural recommendation, I would be happy to take it 
under consideration.

                          ____________________