[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 45 (Friday, March 10, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H3028-H3030]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

  (Mr. BONIOR asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute.)
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I inquire of the distinguished majority 
leader the schedule for next week.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BONIOR. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. ARMEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, on Monday, March 13, the House will meet in proforma 
session at 2 p.m. There will be no votes on Monday.
  On Tuesday, the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour and 2 
p.m. for legislative business. There will be no votes until 5 p.m. We 
expect to consider eight bills under suspension of the rules. If any 
votes are called on these bills, they will be held over until 5 p.m.
  The following bills are scheduled for consideration under suspension 
of the rules on Monday:
  H.R. 402, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Amendments Act;
  H.R. 421, the Cook Inlet Region Purchase of Common Stock Act;
  H.R. 715, the Sea of Okhosk Fisheries Enforcement Act of 1995;
  H.R. 531, the Great Western Scenic Trail Designation Act;
  H.R. 694, the Minor Boundary Adjustments and Miscellaneous Park 
Amendments Act;
  H.R. 562, the Walnut Canyon National Monument Modification Act of 
1995;
  H.R. 536, the Delaware Water Gap Recreation Area Vehicle Operation 
Fees Act; and
  H.R. 517, the Chacoan Outliers Protection Act of 1995.

                              {time}  1245

  On Wednesday, the House will meet at 11 a.m. to take up House 
Resolution 107, the committee funding resolution. We expect to complete 
the resolution and then move to consideration of H.R. 1158 and H.R. 
1159, the fiscal year 1995 emergency supplemental appropriations and 
rescissions legislation, subject to a rule.
  On Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. to complete the 
supplemental and rescission package. It is our hope to have Members on 
their way home to their districts and their families by 3 p.m. on 
Thursday.
  I would remind Members that the House will not be in session next 
Friday or on the following Monday due to the district work period.
  On the following Tuesday, March 21, we do not expect votes to be held 
before 5 p.m. If there is any change in this schedule we will notify 
Members as soon as possible to allow you to finalize your travel plans 
at the earliest possible date.
  Mr. BONIOR. I would ask my friend from Texas, do you expect to have 
votes on any of these suspension bills that the gentleman listed on 
Tuesday?
  Mr. ARMEY. If the gentleman will yield, of course votes are possible 
on any of them. We cannot predict at this time whether or not there 
will be votes, so Members should be advised that we expect votes after 
5 o'clock on Tuesday next.
  Mr. BONIOR. The reason I ask is these are the same bills that we had 
in the last Congress. They were so far as I know completely 
noncontroversial and passed without any objections to them last 
Congress. And they are the only business we are going to have on 
Tuesday. On votes, I think we might want to consider whether we want to 
go ahead with the votes on Tuesday on these measures which appear to be 
very noncontroversial, but I just raise that as something for my friend 
to consider.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BONIOR. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Briefly on that, I remember back when we had things like 
this come up, a lot of things, we would roll the votes to the next day 
when we had a pretty good idea we were not going to have votes or very 
many votes, and if we are just going to come back here on Tuesday and 
there are really not going to be any votes after all, I just do not 
understand it. And the other thing, it does not appear on Wednesday 
that we are going to be having a real heavy schedule.
  Mr. BONIOR. Well, it is my understanding what the majority would like 
to do is deal with the committee funding bill.
  Mr. VOLKMER. That is probably an hour.
  Mr. BONIOR. And it is possible to roll the votes, and I would hope my 
friends on the other side of the aisle would consider that.
  May I also ask the majority leader what time for the last votes on 
Tuesday and Wednesday? Any sense of that?
  Mr. ARMEY. If the gentleman will yield, obviously this is a very 
important piece of legislation. We want to make sure that we can set 
our timing to as much as possible assure Members of their 3 o'clock 
departure on Thursday. We should be prepared to go late on both Tuesday 
and Wednesday night, and of course we would go no later than what we 
think is necessary to guarantee that 3 o'clock departure.
  Mr. BONIOR. If we are only going to do the suspensions on Tuesday, 
what would necessitate us to go late Tuesday evening?
  Mr. ARMEY. If the gentleman will yield, the gentleman's point is well 
taken. Tuesday night may not necessarily be such a late night, but 
Wednesday night we should be prepared.
  Mr. BONIOR. I thank my colleague for his information on that.
  I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DOGGETT. I was wondering about our procedure this next week. 
Under the new open rules under the Contract With America, when we took 
up the law enforcement block grants there were at least 10 Members who 
were denied the right to offer an amendment. On national security there 
were at least eight Members who were denied an opportunity to offer an 
amendment. On the regulatory moratorium there were at least 15 Members 
who were denied the opportunity to offer an amendment. On risk 
assessment there were a mere three Members including myself and a 
Republican colleague who were denied the opportunity to offer an 
amendment. On the takings legislation, two Members, at least two 
Members were denied the opportunity to offer an amendment.
  This week the numbers went up dramatically, four on attorney 
accountability, three on securities litigation. But 60 specific 
amendments, germane 
[[Page H3029]] amendments, were not declared in order to be offered, 
Members cut off from the opportunity to offer them even though we have 
all afternoon, and now apparently under the answers from the majority 
leader all of Monday and Tuesday that could have been allocated, and I 
am just wondering with reference to the matters that are scheduled for 
next week, will we have more Members cut off and denied the opportunity 
to offer an amendment, or do you think it will stay at the current high 
level?
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BONIOR. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. ARMEY. On the recession bill that we will have under 
consideration next week we are asking Members to preprint the amendment 
requests. We anticipate that no requests that are made will be 
rejected.
  Mr. BONIOR. If I could just engage my colleague from Texas and my 
friend from New York, Mr. Solomon, the gentleman from New York 
announced that the Republican leadership is considering a restrictive 
rule for the rescission bill, a rule which contains a new set of 
limitations on the amendment process. It seems to us that under these 
new standards virtually all of the amendments that were offered in the 
Committee on Appropriations markup would be blocked on the House floor.
  Is that pretty much the gentleman's understanding of the rule which 
is going to be given to us this week?
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman will yield?
  Mr. BONIOR. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. The only restrictions on the proposed rule, and we have 
not made the determination yet, is that on any reinstatement of cuts 
that appear in the rescission bill, that that would require an 
offsetting cut. However, if Members were to cut further on those issues 
that are in the 10 chapters of the bill, they are free to do so. So any 
of those amendments that were offered in committee can be offered all 
over again, and hopefully they will be.
  Mr. BONIOR. I yield to my friend the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to pursue that for just a 
minute with the gentleman from New York, because I had drafted an 
amendment in regard to restoring the funds for the veterans' outpatient 
clinic, one in my district that was eliminated in this rescission bill, 
and I would like to get that money back in.
  Mr. SOLOMON. I would like to help the gentleman.
  Mr. VOLKMER. You could help, if you really want to.
  Mr. SOLOMON. I intend to do so.
  Mr. VOLKMER. I am willing to offset, you understand. We found the 
money to offset. The Parliamentarian tells me it does not fit because 
we are taking money, we are cutting money elsewhere than what is cut in 
the bill. If I do not cut, deeper that is than cuts that are in the 
bill, I cannot cut anyplace else even in the same agency. That is what 
the gentleman is doing. He is telling me if I want to put the money 
back for VA I have to take it either out of housing money or someplace 
else. I cannot cut any further because the committee has already cut 
the full limits that can be cut in those items. But I cannot go to 
someplace else and cut and make a cut. The gentleman will not let me do 
that.
  Mr. SOLOMON. It has to be cut by chapter.
  Mr. VOLKMER. No, not just chapter, I have to cut within the areas 
within which the committee already cut. Does the gentleman understand 
what I am saying?
  Mr. SOLOMON. That is correct. Those issues that are in that chapter 
of the bill.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Right. And I cannot cut outside of those if I find 
money.
  Mr. SOLOMON. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. VOLKMER. I cannot cut money someplace else in that chapter, in 
that agency. I cannot make that cut unless there is already a cut 
within that in the bill in that specific amount or area.
  Mr. SOLOMON. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. VOLKMER. What I am trying to tell my majority whip is they are 
limiting the amendments by structuring it so we cannot offer amendments 
unless we make deeper cuts in the programs that we believe in.
  Mr. BONIOR. I am aware of that, and that is why I raised the issue 
with the gentleman on the other side of the aisle. These standards seem 
arbitrary, and I would hope the gentlemen on the other side of the 
aisle would reconsider their position before we go to a rule next week.
  I yield to my friend the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Like the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
Rules, I am interested in getting something done about the deficit, and 
so the one amendment that I am most interested in that the gentleman 
made general reference to was that of the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Murtha], to see that all of the rescissions go to reducing the 
deficit. Will that amendment be in order here on the floor?
  Mr. SOLOMON. If the gentleman will yield, I do not believe so. I 
think you are going to be legislating in an appropriation bill to do 
that, and under the rules of the House you are not allowed to. That is 
why the gentleman from Missouri cannot offer his amendment, because it 
would be in violation of the rule of the House. We are trying to abide 
by the rules.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Does not the bill as reported legislate on the same 
matter?
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman from Michigan yield?
  Mr. BONOIR. I will in just a second. But I think the gentleman from 
Texas is absolutely correct. There are things in the bill that 
legislate on appropriations, and I think my friends recognize that. So 
if that is the case, it seems to us the point my friend from Texas is 
making is a valid one, an even more important one given the deficit 
problem we face and its relationship to the other authorizations.
  Mr. DOGGETT. If the gentleman will yield further, only momentarily to 
say, if I understand the answer, we will be denied any further 
opportunity to see that the cuts that are being made go to reduce the 
size of the Federal deficit to ensure they all go there, and that is 
something that is very important to those of us who believe in pay-as-
you-go Government. And I am assuming we will be cut off entirely from 
the opportunity to see that that happens next week.
  Mr. BONIOR. I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. VOLKMER. I would like to inquire of the gentleman from New York 
as to whether or not this rule that will be forthcoming on the 
rescission bill will protect the language in the bill that does 
legislate on an appropriation bill, or is that going to be left alone 
so that it will be subject to a point of order?
  Mr. SOLOMON. If the gentleman will yield, the Rules Committee has not 
met. We are going to take that into consideration.
  I can just say to the gentleman though who wants to offer the 
additional amendment which would legislate in an appropriation bill, 
even if the appropriation bill did not follow the rules of the House, 
we intend to.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Well then, what the gentleman is telling me basically is 
I had hoped that what is good for the goose is going to be good for the 
gander, and if you are not going to permit further things like I would 
like to do or the gentleman from Pennsylvania would like to do, the 
Murtha amendment, et cetera that you are going to also protect other 
things that are in the bill that were put in committee.
  Mr. SOLOMON. I would say to the gentleman, come to the Rules 
Committee meeting at 10:30 on Tuesday morning and we will be glad to 
entertain the gentleman's testimony.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BONIOR. I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. ARMEY. I appreciate the gentleman from Michigan yielding.
  Since, in fact, the Rules Committee does invite the Members to come 
and give testimony and make requests before the committee before 
writing the rule, and since, in fact, we can debate the merits of the 
rule during the debate that there will be time scheduled for, I wonder 
if the gentleman from Michigan had any more questions about the 
schedule for next week?
  Mr. BONIOR. I have one other question for my distinguished majority 
[[Page H3030]] leader, and that resolves around the rescission bill 
itself. The gentleman mentioned that two bills will be considered in 
the Rules Committee and brought to the floor. Does the gentleman expect 
these rules to be considered separately?
  Mr. ARMEY. If the gentleman will yield, as I pointed out, the Rules 
Committee has not yet met and decided that.
  Mr. BONIOR. May I inquire of the distinguished chairman of the Rules 
Committee whether his intention is to consider these bills separately 
or together?
  Mr. SOLOMON. If the gentleman will yield, as the distinguished 
majority leader has said, the Rules Committee has not met, but I will 
say to the gentleman that there is a probability that we will.
  Mr. BONIOR. Let me just mention to my friends, one bill is an 
emergency bill and one is a nonemergency bill, and as the gentleman 
will recall vividly from his objections last year, the rules were 
changed to make it contrary to the new House rules to have these bills 
considered together and combined. So I hope we will stay with the rules 
and standards which you established for us during the last Congress and 
have implemented in the rules of this Congress.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BONIOR. I yield finally to any friend, the gentleman from West 
Virginia.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Majority Leader, if I could engage you for a moment, I 
want to point out to the majority leader that last week you and I had a 
colloquy. The gentleman observed that it was in our best interest to 
put me at home with my family as opposed to having me on the floor, and 
you know we agree on that, and I want to thank the gentleman.
  I was speaking with the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] as we 
went off the floor and I said see, just 1 week later and we have 3 days 
that we will be able to be with our families, so we thank the gentleman 
for that.
  I would note, with my tongue just a little bit in my cheek, that this 
may bring out something that we have been trying to say all along, that 
when you remove items of the contract from consideration, like the term 
limits bill, that not bringing something up under the contract might 
truly be construed as family friendly.
  Mr. BONIOR. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. VOLKMER. I would just like to take up one other little matter 
with the floor leader, and just bring it to his attention, and I hope 
that in the future maybe we can work out a little bit better 
utilization of time than we have been.
  This morning we had a limit of 10 1-minutes on each side. At the time 
we had a number, quite a few more here that wanted to make 1-minutes, 
including yours truly, and I do not know, there were other Members of 
your party here also, but I do not know how many wanted to do 1-
minutes. I did not go ask them.
                              {time}  1300

  But we are here now at 1 o'clock and everything, and I would hope 
that in the future Members would be able to give them. I appreciate it 
if the majority leader would recognize that this is an opportunity that 
many Members think is very worthwhile, to express themselves on an 
issue, and that by reducing that time unnecessarily it appears to some 
of us that you just do not want to hear us on the floor of the House, 
and I hope that that is not so. I would hope that, come like Monday, 
and Tuesday, there should not be any limit at all; come Wednesday, that 
we could have sufficient--at least 15 on each side, and then Thursday 
we will leave it up to you because you want to get out, and we all want 
to get out at 3 o'clock. But I would hope that we can have a little 
more favorable view of these 1-minutes.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield?
  Mr. BONIOR. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. ARMEY. I would say to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] 
that I would look forward to listening to him speak for as long as he 
wants. I am sure he could have a 1-hour prime time special order on 
Monday, and, if the gentleman takes that special order, I am sure I 
will find some time to listen to some part of it.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Well, I am not looking for the 1 hour for myself. I am 
looking for other Members that have been over here that have speeches 
ready to go and cannot give them because we have an artificial barrier 
of limiting the 1-minutes when some feel that it really is not 
necessary to limit it on certain days, and I would hope that the floor 
leader--I am not asking for an answer right now, but I hope he looks at 
it for the future and tries to assess it a little bit different.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, we plan for a 3 
o'clock departure for today. We had a couple of amendments withdrawn. 
We had a couple of others that were accepted, and we got a bonus 
because of the working relationship of the majority and minority 
Members on the floor, and, yes, it turns out, given that circumstance, 
that our need was not as we had thought it was, and I thank the 
gentleman for his point.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I wish the majority leader a very pleasant 
and happy weekend.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Bonior].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Wicker). The Chair would point out that 
additional 1-minute speeches are in order at this time.

                          ____________________