[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 206 (Thursday, December 21, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H15544-H15546]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

  (Mr. FAZIO of California asked and was given permission to address 
the House for 1 minute.)
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to the majority 
leader about the schedule.
  I yield to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey].
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, first of all let me express my appreciation 
for the patience of the Members over these days leading up to the 
holidays. I know that it has been difficult for Members and their 
families, but today I am more hopeful that the end is in sight.
  I am pleased to announced that today there were very productive 
discussions between senior White House officials and Members of the 
House and Senate leadership. I am also pleased to announce that 
starting tomorrow morning budget negotiations will begin between the 
congressional leadership and the President on balancing the budget.
  It is our hope that these negotiations will be successful and 
expeditious. We believe that these negotiations, if conducted 
seriously, could be completed very quickly, perhaps in only a few days. 
It is our intention to bring to the floor as quickly as possible any 
agreement that balances the budget in 7 years using CBO numbers. At the 
same time, I do not want to keep Members in town unnecessarily. I will 
be announcing tomorrow a more definitive schedule for the next several 
days, but my expectation is to have the House in recess pending word of 
an agreement.
  Depending on how the negotiations go tomorrow morning, the recess 
could be only for a day or two or it could last until Wednesday. I will 
recommend that the Members make plane reservations for sometime after 3 
tomorrow afternoon, but understand that, if negotiations are moving 
quickly, we may stay to complete a balanced budget. I am sorry I cannot 
be more specific at this time.
  Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I would like to 
advise our Members that we have had the last vote of the evening, but 
we will have important work in the morning. I will be, in a moment, 
asking unanimous consent for a 9 a.m. time to commence work in the 
morning. But if that is granted, we would be dealing with House 
Resolution 299, a proposal for House royalty changes, possibly the ICC 
conference report. If we can work out all the details related to it, it 
may be possible tomorrow that we may be able to take up legislation 
that would affect D.C. government funding and AFDC.
  So we still have important work for us to do tomorrow. We hope to be 
able to conclude it expeditiously and get Members on their way. Again, 
let me remind Members, we would be in under those conditions, under 
recess. We would continue to work, and, as soon as something of import 
were available, we would give Members ample notice and then bring them 
back as quickly as possible to reconvene the House and complete that 
work.

  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, the other day the gentleman 
assured us that we would have a 24-hour notice on any return during the 
recess, the one we had prior. Is that still the standard that we could 
all be able to live with so that we could come from wherever we may be 
with family?
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's point. Mr. 
Speaker, I should say that I believe, in fact, I assured 12 hours.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, 12 hours did the gentleman say?
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, that was the position I took before. I do 
understand the problems of travel. I can assure that there would be 
definitely a 12-hour notice before we would convene business. I will 
try to be as considerate as I possibly can to make sure Members from 
the most remote locations have an opportunity to get back.
  I understand how difficult it is. I would like to be, I would like to 
guarantee a 24-hour. I am just not sure that I could make such a 
guarantee and make it stick. But I think I can say with total 
confidence Members would have a 12-hour notice.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. The problem, of course, is going to be that 
Members are going to be perhaps at greater than normal distance. Their 
staff is unlikely to be at post here. It may be more difficult for 
Members to get reservations during the holiday season. All of these 
things complicate the ability to do a short-time turnaround, and 
therefore I think, more than last week, we probably will need at least 
24 hours for Members to be able to be here for what could be among the 
most important votes of this session.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman's point is well taken. 
Let me just say that I will address the issue with all the generosity 
and advance notice that I am able to give.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, if I could ask the gentleman 
about the schedule that he has outlined for tomorrow. I have been told 
that the State of California, that I represent, has a billion and a 
quarter dollars in Medicaid payments that are needed for us to be able 
to make our commitments to all the providers and to the people who are 
beneficiaries of the MediCal Program in our State.

  I noticed and I think there is tremendous relief on this side of the 
aisle that we will be dealing with the AFDC issue that just yesterday 
we were told was not an issue. Is there any possibility that we could 
deal with the Medicaid problem in terms of meeting the requirements? At 
least several of our 

[[Page H15545]]
States, I think, are up against a cash flow crisis.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, let 
me say I share the gentleman's optimism with respect to D.C. funding 
and AFDC funding. It is only fair for me to say that it is not clear 
that we will be able to deal with those two issues. We are working with 
a good many people and, assuming we get the appropriate agreements, we 
are hopeful to deal with those two issues. As far as the other issue 
the gentleman raised, I can only say I will take it under consideration 
at this time.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Could the gentleman tell me, is there any 
possibility that the telecommunications conference report would be 
completed? I know that many were hoping that that issue could be dealt 
with before the first of the new year?
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I could just say to the gentleman that it is 
unlikely that the issue will be available to be brought to the floor 
prior to the 27th or 28th of this month.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, if I could inquire of the majority leader, 
when does he intend to be going to the Committee on Rules to obtain a 
rule for whatever action would be contemplated taken with D.C., AFDC, 
Medicaid, or, I understand now that the gentleman has several other 
significant problems which he was not aware of last night.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
can only say to the gentleman from Wisconsin it is my hope that it will 
be unnecessary to go to the Committee on Rules with respect to these 
issues. We are hoping to do them by unanimous consent. I must say in 
all seriousness it is very difficult for me to see how we could do them 
unless we do them that way.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I do 
not think that it is appropriate for this House to deal with 
considerations such as that under unanimous consent because it would 
preclude our opportunity to discuss in any meaningful way whatsoever 
the issues that are before us. It would also preclude us from trying to 
amend it in any way to deal with other legitimate concerns and needs. I 
would urge the gentleman, if he wants this considered on the square, to 
do it the way it ought to be done, which is to go to the Committee on 
Rules.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, let me remind the gentleman, I understand the 
gentleman from Wisconsin makes a point, and that is to be taken 
seriously. Obviously we understand the need for Members to speak. We 
would hope in the interest of being expeditious in these matters that 
the debate time would not be lengthy. But certainly there would be an 
opportunity for Members to express their points of view.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, will 
the gentleman assure us that there will be an opportunity for us--let 
me put it this way. If there are certain specific programs which are to 
receive the favored attention of the House, I would like to know how we 
might also get into play several other crucial programs that also ought 
to be brought to the attention of the House. We cannot do that under 
unanimous consent unless we have an initial request which makes it 
possible to do so. That is why I think it would be preferable to go to 
the Committee on Rules if the gentleman is looking for cooperation from 
those who have other legitimate concerns.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, if I may respond at this point, I would say 
that we have had serious discussions that have lasted most of the day 
on the two issues I have mentioned. We feel confident we have an 
opportunity to act.
  We think it is a very narrow and a very necessary effort to be made. 
The opportunity to do so is very limited. We want to exercise that, and 
we will pursue it the best we can. But I must say to the gentleman that 
I would be constrained to believe that, if we could in fact achieve 
what we have hoped to achieve in the two areas before mentioned, we 
would have achieved all that is possible at this time.

                              {time}  1745

  Mr. OBEY. If the gentleman would continue to yield, I want to make it 
clear to the gentleman that, if he expects to put us in a box tomorrow 
in which we are asked to provide for the opening of the Government only 
for a few narrow categories, we expect to have the right to try to 
expand that opportunity to open the Government, and if he expects us to 
cooperate on any unanimous-consent agreement, I think then he needs to 
understands right now that we need some cooperation in that respect.
  Mr. ARMEY. If the gentleman from California would continue to yield, 
I would only say to the gentleman from Wisconsin we are responding to 
concerns that were raised to us by Members from the gentleman's side of 
the aisle, we are trying to do so behalf of their genuine concern, and 
if the gentleman from Wisconsin objects to our efforts, I regret that. 
I will continue to work with those people with whom I have been 
working, making every effort I can to respond to the needs we have been 
discussing, and I hope that it is possible for us to conclude these 
efforts we have been making satisfactorily.
  Mr. OBEY. If the gentleman would continue to yield, I think a number 
of Members would be very disturbed if they are asked to provider an 
opportunity to only open the District of Columbia Government without 
also having an opportunity to try to open up the Government for all 
taxpayers.
  Mr. ARMEY. If the gentleman would continue to yield, I would just say 
that the body is always, of course, prepared to deal with disturbed 
Members.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. If I could ask the gentleman to give us a 
little more finite response about tomorrow's schedule, my understanding 
is the only issue that is absolutely certain to be before us is the 
royalty rule change; is that correct? The others are all hopeful, but 
not necessarily definite, items; is that correct?
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield?
  Mr. FAZIO of California. I am happy to.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I have grown to be accustomed to attaching 
probabilities. Absolute certainty, I think, is a good characterization 
of probability for House Resolution 299, extremely high probability for 
ICC conference report. I am very optimistic, and until a few minutes 
ago I was optimistic about the other two matters as well.

  Mr. FAZIO of California. May I ask how long the gentleman expects us 
to be here? I have heard from 9 to 3. Is it possible that the bulk of 
that time would be taken up with the debate on the rule change? That 
is, I understood, a 3-hour debate potential.
  Mr. ARMEY. If the gentleman would yield, I do not think it will be 
that long. The Committee on Rules, I am just told, has not in fact met 
yet, but I do not believe it will be that much time. We are sensitive 
to having had a year's experience, if the gentleman would continue to 
yield, and we are sensitive to the nature of schedules of our airlines, 
and it is our hope and we believe that we can be maximumly responsible 
for the needs of the maximum number of Members if we can have a target 
for 3 o'clock because of just the rigors of the airline schedules.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Finally, let me wrap up with this one, Mr. 
Leader.
  Is it the gentleman's position that the only thing that would call us 
back would be an issue related to a continuing resolution or a 
balanced-budget proposal? There would be no other legislation that 
would be considered during this proposed recess period; is that 
correct?
  Mr. ARMEY. If the gentleman would yield, the recess period authority 
I think takes us until Wednesday evening, Wednesday. Certainly within 
that framework the only thing that would interrupt the recess would be 
the balanced budget, and, if I might, obviously we would have to come 
to terms with the end of that recess authority on Wednesday, but it 
would be a useful thing, I think in the interests of all our Members on 
Monday or Tuesday, Tuesday at least, to check their whip phone. We will 
try, if there is any information to share, we will try to get it over 
the whip phones for our colleagues.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the majority leader.
  
[[Page H15546]]


                      HOUR OF MEETING ON TOMORROW

  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House 
adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Wisconsin). Is there 
objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________