[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 35 (Friday, February 24, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H2211-H2214]
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 and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Armey] for the purpose of discussing the schedule for 
next week.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, let me first give the Members a tentative 
schedule for the month of March. As has been the case for the month of 
February, votes may be scheduled for as early as 2 p.m. on Mondays. 
However, as often as has been possible in the past, if we can work out 
an agreement, we may be able to hold votes over until 5 p.m. on 
Mondays.
  As many Members on both sides of the aisle have long distances to 
travel to their districts, our leadership will do everything we can to 
notify members as soon as possible so that they can finalize their 
travel plans.
  Also the House will not be in session on Friday, March 17, or on 
Monday, March 20, for a district work period. We expect no votes until 
5 p.m. on Tuesday, March 21.
  We have a very heavy legislative schedule for the month of March, and 
it is our hope to have Members on their way home to their families and 
districts by 3 p.m. on Fridays. However, if the schedule requires us to 
work later on Fridays or meet during weekends, we will advise Members 
at the earliest possible time.

                              {time}  1410

  On another note, it is our intention to change the time the House 
meets for legislative business on Wednesday from 11 to 10 a.m. It is 
our hope that this schedule change will allow us to help Members leave 
for their districts by 3 p.m. on Fridays.
  Perhaps this would be an appropriate time for me to yield to the 
gentleman from California about the March schedule, prior to going on 
to next week's schedule.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEPHARDT. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  [[Page H2212]] I do not think in February we have had any votes 
before 5 o'clock on Mondays. I am certainly hopeful that that will 
continue to be the case. The concern that I have expressed in a prior 
dialog with the leader is simply that those from west of the Rockies 
lose an entire Sunday afternoon in order to be here for late votes on 
Monday, and I would hope that we could always find a way to avoid that, 
including, if it were in the majority's plans, Monday, February 27, 
when I understood we may be asked to be here at 3:30.
  We have all made plans for this particular weekend that would allow 
us to get 6:30 and 7 a.m. flights on Monday morning in order to be here 
for the 5 o'clock voting time that was announced.
  I would certainly hope that we would not have any early votes in 
March, and I hope we are not going to break our word by having any 
votes earlier on this coming Monday, the 27th, because I think it 
really is totally counterproductive for Members who really do need to 
be with their families, or do need to spend time with their 
constituents.
  It has been hard enough in the early going of this Congress to 
maintain that kind of rapport.
  Mr. ARMEY. If the gentleman will continue to yield, let me begin my 
response by the observation at the outset of the February schedule we 
advised Members of the possibility of votes being as early as 2 o'clock 
on Mondays.
  Yes, the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] rightly observes that, 
thanks largely to the splendid cooperation we have gotten in 
negotiating with the minority, we have to this point been able to avoid 
any votes before 5 o'clock on Monday.
  I know I am grateful for that, and I can tell the Members, so many 
times in the past that I have gotten off my plane and been at home in 
Dallas, TX, and seen the California folks changing planes at that 
point, and I can appreciate the struggle for that long distance travel.
  We are still hopeful. However, on Monday next we will have a rule 
that will require to be voted on about 3:30 on Monday next. It is an 
open rule. We do not intend to call for a recorded vote on that. We 
must be prepared, though, for the possibility that somebody on the 
minority side might call for a vote on that open rule, and in that 
case, must advise Members of the possibility, even some degree of 
probability, of a vote at 3:30 next Monday.
  If we had an agreement, no vote would be called for, then we could 
advise Members otherwise.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEPHARDT. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. I might also say, Mr. Speaker, that in the rule that 
will be brought up at 2:30, it provides for 2 hours of general debate 
on the risk assessment bill. Therefore, if there is no vote on the open 
rule, then we would go directly to 2 hours of general debate.
  It means that the gentleman could be here as late as 6 o'clock and 
not expect a vote even before that time, which would solve all their 
problems.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding, and I do not know 
this for a fact, but there may be a Member on our side who will ask for 
a vote. I want to make that warning. I do not know that, but I want to 
make the warning.
  However, I would remind the distinguished majority leader, the 
chairman of the Committee on Rules, that it is my understanding he has 
the unilateral authority to roll the vote on the rule until 4:30 or 5 
o'clock. That would not be something we would object to.
  Mr. ARMEY. If the gentleman will continue to yield, it is very 
difficult to consider the acceptability to the body of rolling the vote 
on a rule making in order a debate that would ensue in the intervening 
time, so it seems to me that in the interests of conforming with the 
accepted procedures of the House, if a vote is ordered at 3:30, we 
would be required to take that vote in order to commence with the 
debate that we hope or expect in order to accomplish an already crowded 
schedule.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEPHARDT. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to explain why there may be a problem here. If we 
are talking about a genuinely open rule, as those that have been 
historically understood here, there would not be a problem. My 
understanding is that we are talking not about an open rule, which I 
had always understood to be anyone could get up until the conclusion of 
people's interest and offer amendments, but a rule with one of these 
10-hour limitations.
  I know we have not yet made English the national language by some 
legislation, but I had thought English was still the language of these 
debates, though. An open rule is not one where there is a 10-hour 
limit.
  In fact, we just heard one of the very distinguished Members on the 
other side, the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter], pointing out 
that during one of the crime bills he stood around for 7 hours and was 
not able to offer an amendment.
  A rule in which the leading Member of the House is unable to offer an 
amendment is not an open rule. It is, frankly, mislabeling in the 
extreme to call one of these 10-hour limits an open rule, especially 
since we done some compilation on the four 10-hour bills that I have 
seen, and anywhere from 2 hours and 40 minutes to 3\1/2\ hours has gone 
just for voting.
  Obviously, voting is important. we have had people call rollcalls on 
unanimous votes, in one case, 405 to nothing, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania, [Mr. Clinger], and that came out of the 10 hours.
  So if we were talking about an open rule, with the possibility after 
3 or 4 days or 2 days of closing it down, that would be a different 
story. However, when we are talking about one of these 10-hour rules, 
where when the House is unruly, that comes out of the debate time; when 
there is a point of order, that comes out of the debate time; when we 
are talking about that kind of restriction, where many, many Members 
have been prevented from offering amendments, it is not an open rule, 
and that is why there might be a vote.
  Mr. SOLOMON. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I have here a 
record of all of the rules from last year that were brought to this 
floor under an open rule, except for the fact that they had time 
constraints.
  They were extremely important bills, such as the Employment 
Retirement Security Act, the Black Lung Benefits Restoration Act, the 
Presidio Management, the State and local governments interstate waste 
control, very important; the American Heritage Partnership Act.
  All of those rules were open rules except for the fact that they had 
time constraints. All of those rules were completely open except for 
time constraints, and the time constraints were no more than 4 hours, 
not 10 hours. We allowed those to go. We supported the gentleman, we in 
the minority, and allowed those to go through on voice votes, even 
though they were severe time constraints, because it was an open rule 
process.
  We would certainly expect at least that kind of consideration from 
those in the minority.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. If the gentleman will continue to yield, 
Mr. Speaker, first, my understanding was last year votes did not come 
out of that time, so there was some control.
  Second, I am, again, struck by every time the gentleman is questioned 
about living up to the promises that were made, the answer is ``We are 
doing the same as you did.'' It seems to me that there ought to be a 
time limit on how often you can have it both ways. Either you are 
bringing a new openness to the House, or you are following the old 
rules.
  Maybe the gentleman can decide 1 day it will be one and 1 day it will 
be the other, but there ought to be a rule you cannot make both 
arguments in the same day, so once again we get the argument ``We are 
just doing what you did.''
  I do not think we always did what was right. As far as the gentleman 
agreeing to limit rules, let me be very clear. The minority last year, 
when they were in the minority, and before that, very often they 
supported closed rules whenever they did not want to see amendments. 
That is very clear.
  [[Page H2213]] However, the fact is that the open rule process as the 
gentleman describes it is anything but an open rule process, and maybe 
I hallucinated. Maybe the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] was 
not there a few minutes ago saying ``I had an amendment that I was kept 
from offering.'' I could have sworn he was. I will have to check C-
SPAN, because I do not think he could have been clipped out.
  The fact is that Members here time and time again have been prevented 
from offering amendments. Again, I do not remember this situation where 
the rollcalls all came out of that, so people had an extended 
rollcalls. By the way, even if that is what we did, even if that is 
what we did, I think you should feel free to change it.

                              {time}  1420

  Please let me say to my friends on the other side. Do not feel bound 
by our example. If in fact experience has shown that people like the 
gentleman from Nebraska cannot offer an amendment, improve on us. 
Strive to be better. Do not limit yourselves by history.
  At the same time, I have to say if the explanation is always going to 
be that you are just doing what we did, please stop insisting that you 
are doing it very different. The fact is that on issue after issue that 
has come up under your supposed open rule, we have not been able to get 
to amendments.
  I would say one final thing as a member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary. The Committee on the Judiciary, under the gun, has done away 
with subcommittee markups. Maybe other committees have. We have not had 
extensive hearings. So in fact bills are coming to the floor under this 
period less prepared with less work than previously. The chairman of 
the Committee on the Judiciary has time and time said, ``Well, We'll 
make sure you can offer that amendment on the floor. I will fight for 
your right to offer the amendment on the floor.'' And because of this 
restrictive 10-hour provision, subject as it is to manipulation and 
abuse, that has not been the case. So we have hasty legislation without 
subcommittee markups rushed to the floor with previous questions 
ordered in committee and then the 10-hour rule which with all that 
comes out of it is rarely as much as 5 or 6 hours of genuine debate, 
and on issue after issue after issue fundamental amendments have not 
been allowed to be presented.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEPHARDT. I yield to the distinguished majority leader.
  Mr. ARMEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  If I can move on to next week's schedule.
  On Monday, February 27, the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning 
hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business. We will take up the rule for 
H.R. 1022, the Risk Assessment Cost Benefit Act of 1995, and then move 
into debate on that legislation.
  Members should take note that there will be no votes before 5 p.m. on 
Monday. I am sorry, there will be. Please, let me correct myself.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. I thought the gentleman was yielding in more 
ways than one.
  Mr. ARMEY. You can call that a Freudian optimism if you like.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. There have been several this year.
  Mr. ARMEY. Members will take note there will be votes before 5 p.m. 
on Monday. However, we expect no votes before 3:30 p.m.
  If the majority can be assured by the minority they will not call for 
a vote on the rule, the majority can certainly assure the minority that 
no vote will be called for on this side, in which case we can amend our 
advice to our Members regarding the time at which votes will take 
place.
  On Tuesday, February 28, the House will meet at 9:30 a.m. for morning 
hour and at 11 a.m. for legislative business. We expect to complete 
consideration of H.R. 1022 and then possibly take up the rule for H.R. 
926, the Regulatory Reform and Relief Act.
  On Wednesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. and depending on the 
previous day's action, we will expect to complete consideration on H.R. 
926.
  On Thursday and Friday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. to consider 
H.R. 925, the Private Property Protection Act of 1995, which is subject 
to a rule. We plan to complete consideration of H.R. 925 on Friday.
  Also, we may take up House Resolution 80, the resolution of inquiry 
into the Mexican currency situation, on Thursday or Friday. It is our 
hope to have Members on their way home to their families in their 
districts by 3 p.m. on Friday.
  The House schedule for next week promises to be a very busy one and 
Members should be advised that we do expect to complete consideration 
on these important pieces of legislation next week. So the House may 
work late into the evening on several days.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. I thank the leader for yielding.
  I guess I go back to this 3:30 votes issue. I personally think that 
Members from the West are being held hostage as we attempt to move the 
process here so quickly. We all understand that an open rule is being 
defined in a variety of ways and there are many Members on our side who 
object to the 10-hour time limit.
  If there could be and I think there is a good chance for unanimous-
consent requests to be granted, then perhaps we would be able to roll 
the vote on the rule until after 5 p.m. so that Members in the West can 
maintain their schedules and plan to fly as they had originally 
planned, can carry out their Sunday activities and still be here in 
time to vote against or for this rule as they may wish to.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEPHARDT. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I want to make a suggestion, since my 
friends on the other side have told us that our example is more 
important to them than I had previously realized. Let me give them one 
that they apparently overlooked in their study of us. We have in the 
past done rules in two parts. It would be entirely possible on a Monday 
to bring out a rule which provided for general debate. We could then 
have the rule voted unanimously, have the two hours of general debate, 
then go into the other part.
  If you were in fact motivated by a desire to accommodate that point 
of view and not lose any time, you could have a two-part rule. You 
could have a rule that provided for general debate and then go into the 
other rule which would provide for debate beyond that. That is 
something we often did.
  An agreement to do a two-part rule which puts general debate up in 
the noncontroversial procedure and then has a more controversial one 
would accommodate this.
  Mr. ARMEY. If the gentleman will yield further, the gentleman from 
California makes a good point about the difficulties that the 
California and other western travelers have. The majority leader would 
like to
 extend to the gentleman from California the invitation, if you would 
like to make a unanimous-consent request that would allow us to roll 
the vote on the rule until the conclusion of general debate on the 
ensuing bill, I can assure you no one on this side of the aisle would 
object to that unanimous consent request.

  Mr. FAZIO of California. If the gentleman would yield, I would be 
inclined to make that request. I do want to make sure that I would not 
find opponents on my side. I am encouraged by your position and we can 
perhaps make such a request shortly.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. I want to ask a couple of other questions, and we will 
have an answer to that question in just a moment.
  Can the gentleman tell us when the resolution regarding the Mexico 
bailout situation will be brought up? Is it fair to say members would 
be given 24 hours' notice prior to its consideration?
  Mr. ARMEY. The gentleman is correct. I wish I could be more precise. 
It will be Thursday or Friday. But I can assure the gentleman that you 
will have 24 hours' notice.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. I thank the gentleman.
  Second, I want to reiterate our desire to be able at whatever time it 
can be made available to get a projection of when you think the other 
pieces of legislation in the contract may be 
[[Page H2214]]  brought up. I realize that you do not know for sure. 
But it would help us a lot if we could have that projection so we can 
begin thinking about what is coming and when it is coming and provide 
for that.
  Mr. ARMEY. If the gentleman would yield further, again let me thank 
you for your suggestion. We are again in a period where we are 
examining that schedule and we would hope to be able to give you that 
as soon as possible.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. I thank the gentleman.
  Finally, you have said that the House will meet at 10 a.m. Wednesday 
instead of 11.
  I assume that you have the authority to effect this meeting time 
change. Traditionally as you know the minority has been consulted and 
agreed to changes in the meeting time. I would hope we could continue 
with that practice. I realize what your concern is. We will try to work 
with you in every way that we can. But it would be helpful if we could 
talk about that before it is announced.
  Mr. ARMEY. Again if the gentleman would yield, let me say that I 
expect that we will work this out by unanimous consent. It is my 
anticipation that we will be able to do so.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. I thank the gentleman.
  Finally, can the gentleman tell at this point when the tax reduction 
bill along with the budget cuts to pay for it might be coming onto the 
floor? Generally. I know you do not know the exact date but just the 
general time.
  Mr. ARMEY. If the gentleman would yield, we expect that to be very 
late in March. We anticipate that being the last of the contract items 
to be brought to the floor. So at this point, let me just say very late 
in March.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. I thank the gentleman. I have no further questions. We 
will be getting an answer on this possible unanimous consent request on 
the rule on Monday. As soon as we have an answer, we will try to make 
that request if we can.
  Mr. ARMEY. If the gentleman would yield further, I am optimistic that 
the request might be made. I am confident it will not be objected to on 
this side. Let me just point out that we will put a whip advisory out 
immediately and I am sure your side will do the same.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Exactly. I thank the gentleman.
  

                          ____________________