[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 125 (Thursday, September 12, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H10345-H10347]
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 
theHouse for 1 minute.)
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Armey], the distinguished majority leader, to inquire of the 
schedule for the remainder of the week and next week.
  Before I yield, I would like to pose a question as well to the 
leader. We on this side of the aisle have repeatedly requested that you 
schedule a vote on House Resolution 288, a resolution commending the 
U.S. Armed Forces for carrying out the military mission in Iraq.
  As you know, the Senate passed this resolution by a vote of 96 to 1 
on September 5. I do not note that it is scheduled for the week. I do 
not believe it has been scheduled for next week. We have heard from 
staff that it will not be scheduled. We believe that theHouse should 
act as we traditionally do after a military engagement. I think we 
should act, as the Senate has, to support our Armed Forces. That is 
really all the resolution does. I am once again asking if the leader 
would schedule a vote immediately on this important resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the majority leader for any response he wants 
to give.
  Mr. ARMEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I do not know whether 
the two gentlemen, the gentleman from Pennsylvania and the gentleman 
from California, would prefer that I let you have your colloquy and 
then we go to the schedule.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. This is related to the schedule if the 
gentleman has any response. Otherwise I could yield to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. ARMEY. It seems that I might be able to more neatly conduct my 
business of announcing the schedule. If the two of you gentlemen want 
to have a bit of a colloquy, go ahead and have that first.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. I would be interested in whatever comment 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania, a member of the Committee on Armed 
Services, has.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I thank my colleague and friend for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Committee on National Security 
and chair of one of the subcommittees, I understand the gentleman's 
concern about having a vote on this floor and very frankly I agree with 
him, but I have a great deal of concern with the Senate resolution in 
light of the actions that have taken place over the past several days. 
In fact, in a recently adjourned House Committee on National Security 
meeting where I asked Chairman Floyd Spence if he or Vice Chairman Ron 
Dellums have been briefed on what is occurring now, they both replied 
no. I questioned the chairman of the Committee on International 
Relations, Ben Gilman, and he has not been briefed. Chairman Livingston 
has not been briefed.
  We have a President announcing that we are sending F-117 planes to 
the base in Kuwait because we cannot base them in Saudi Arabia and now 
Saddam Hussein is saying by basing them in Kuwait, that is in fact 
Kuwait declaring an act of war against Iraq.
  These are situations that require under the War Powers Act this body 
to be consulted with. That, in fact, is not taking place. In face the 
U.N. resolution which authorizes us there in the first place in fact 
requires this President to abide by that resolution.
  To my dear friend and colleague, I say we have to have a vote but not 
on the Senate resolution. This body needs to vote on whether or not we 
support this President and what he is doing with our troops right now. 
I am going to demand that next week and I will be glad to support my 
colleague but not with a Senate resolution and giving this President 
the authority to put our people in harm's way with no plan. That is my 
question to my friend.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if 
the leader would want to associate himself with the position taken by 
the Member in the well.
  Mr. ARMEY. If the gentleman will yield further, let me, Mr. Speaker, 
just predicate my remarks on the schedule by responding to the 
gentleman from California.
  If the gentleman from California will continue to yield, it is very 
clear, it seems to most of us, that current events have outpaced the 
resolution on Iraq passed by the Senate last week. It is not likely 
that theHouse will bring the resolution passed last week up for a vote. 
While I say that, let me say, Mr. Speaker, that I am sure I speak for 
every Member of this body when I say theHouse of Representatives stands 
in support of our men and women in uniform everywhere they may be 
stationed in the world and that our support for men and women in this 
area of the world is of particular interest to us today.
  Having made those comments, I would just say that the leadership has 
not had brought to its attention from any of the relevant committees in 
theHouse that might initiate a resolution related to current events in 
Iraq, a resolution that they would have us to bring to the floor.

                              {time}  1200

  At this point, we have nothing in leadership under consideration to 
bring to the floor on that subject.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, and I 
appreciate the candid response, it seems to me totally inappropriate 
for us to allow events that may be taking place even as we speak to get 
in the way of an effort to resolve as a group, bipartisanly, that we 
want to support the American men and women who are engaged in this 
conflict. It seems to me that is a minimum thing.
  We may want to talk about other aspects of this. We are in the middle 
of a political campaign. But this is a bottom line request, and I know 
the leader has brought other matters to the floor without a direct 
committee jurisdiction. So I guess I would still hope that he would 
reconsider that decision, let us get this behind us, and move on to 
other issues.
  I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I find it incredible that we might stall a vote for 
support of our troops that may or may not be in harm's way, but are 
clearly flying at this time missions of risk, and we would stall that 
based upon whether or not Saddam Hussein believes this is an

[[Page H10346]]

act of war because we have moved some military hardware and perhaps 
some troops into a country that has already been attacked and assaulted 
and invaded by Saddam Hussein in the past, and he has built up military 
assets on their border.
  So now it is Saddam Hussein's characterization of what this President 
has done that may or may not dictate whether or not we are going to 
provide a congressional resolution of support for our troops. It is 
just ludicrous that we would be in that situation.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from California would yield 
further, I would like to make one statement related to this question 
and then get on with announcing the schedule. Let me just say to the 
gentleman from California, when the President of the United States, the 
Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, determines that he wants to 
commit American men and woman and American military resources to a 
field of action, it is in my judgment appropriate that the President of 
the United States would share information with the appropriate Members 
of the Congress in committee positions and in leadership positions on 
both sides of the aisle, on both ends of the building. Only after 
Congress is fully and completely briefed by the administration 
regarding the actions that they have underway and the consequences of 
those actions as things are playing out on the ground, should Congress 
then take it upon itself to move forward with a resolution saying 
something about the position Congress takes on that action.
  But I must say, in all candor, it would be very premature for this 
body to bring forward a resolution about these actions in Iraq at a 
time when this body has not yet had any briefing by the administration 
regarding what exactly it is they are doing in Iraq. I personally would 
not want to, as a Member of this Congress, vote on a resolution that 
involves American men and women and American materials committed to a 
field of conflict, with no more knowledge about what is happening on 
that than what it is I read in the newspapers.
  So I would suggest that if the administration would like a resolution 
from this body, the administration might initiate efforts to brief this 
body on what actions are being taken.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Reclaiming my time, I would simply say, 
before briefly yielding to my friend from New York, that the Senate 
voted 96 to 1 to support the troops. That is all we are talking about. 
We are not talking about the need for better consultation or any 
further action that the committees of jurisdiction may want to take. We 
are simply saying that we ought to be together as a country in support 
of our men and women. This is not in support of every aspect of this 
involvement that we have once again been forced to take up in Iraq.
  I yield briefly to my friend from New York, Mr. Engel, for whatever 
comment he may wish to make, a member of the Committee on International 
Relations.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, let me say, with all due respect to the 
majority leader, I do not think our being briefed has one thing to do 
with congressional support for our men and women who are putting their 
lives on the line. Whether or not we feel we have been briefed, I have 
something here where we had a briefing by the State Department. There 
have been several other briefings. I think we should just support our 
men and women over there. I think it is very, very clear, 
unfortunately, that the Republicans here are playing politics, and 
frankly want to embarrass the President as much as possible.
  Mr. ARMEY. If the gentleman from California would yield further, 
under regular order, I think it is appropriate at this time for us to 
announce the schedule on behalf of the Members, and then perhaps the 
gentlemen so gathered here on the floor would like to come together in 
a special order to have this very broad-based debate.
  I might say to the gentleman from California, first of all, it is not 
appropriate for us to take up a resolution passed by the other body. 
That is a resolution of the other body. I might then further say that I 
am sure the gentleman from California would agree with me that the 
support that each and every Member of this body gives to our men and 
women in the field is so profoundly known and stated that it hardly 
needs a formal vote on a resolution.
  That being the case, I think this body in all prudence should await 
any action taken, by way of any statement from which any inference 
could be drawn related to the action currently under way in Iraq, until 
the President and the administration brief Members of this body about 
what exactly is being done.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. At this point I will yield to the gentleman 
for whatever comments he may wish to make on the schedule.
  Mr. ARMEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, theHouse has finished its legislative business for the 
week. TheHouse will next meet at 12 o'clock noon on Monday, September 
16, for a pro forma session. Of course, there will be no legislative 
business and no votes on that day.
  On Tuesday, September 17, theHouse will meet at 12:30 p.m. for 
morning hour and at 2 o'clock p.m. to consider a number of bills under 
suspension of the rules. We will distribute a list of suspensions to 
all Members' offices as soon as it is ready. Any recorded votes ordered 
on the suspensions will be postponed until 5 o'clock p.m. on Tuesday 
next.
  Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday we hope to take up H.R. 1858, the 
Regulatory Burden Relief Act, which will be subject to a rule. We also 
expect a number of conference reports will be ready next week, 
including H.R. 3675, the Department of Transportation Appropriations 
Act; H.R. 3610, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act; H.R. 
3666, VA-HUD Appropriations; H.R. 2202, the Immigration and Nationality 
Act; and H.R. 3005, the Securities Amendments of 1996.

  TheHouse may also consider a fiscal year 1997 omnibus appropriations 
bill next week.
  We will conclude legislative business by 2 o'clock p.m. on Friday, 
September 20, and I do thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, if I could reclaim my time, I 
have a couple of questions. Is it likely that we would have votes only 
Friday, September 20, or would it be possible we would end up, as 
recently, not being in on Friday?
  Mr. ARMEY. I thank the gentleman for that inquiry, and if the 
gentleman will yield further, we try to accommodate to the Members as 
much as we can. I think in all realistic projections, we should expect 
these conference reports to really be coming out of the various 
conferences next week, and I think realistically we should all 
anticipate we will in fact be here on Friday finishing up these 
conference reports.
  We are all anxious to complete the year's business and move to sine 
die, and I have, as the song says, high hopes that these conference 
reports will be coming to the body in such numbers that we should 
project our being here on Friday.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. If the gentleman would allow me to reclaim 
my time, is it possible we would have no votes on Wednesday before 
noon? Is that likely to be the case?
  Mr. ARMEY. At this point I would expect we would have votes after 5 
on Tuesday.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. We ought to be prepared on Wednesday for 
votes in the morning.
  Mr. ARMEY. It is my hope we will work long and hard cleaning up and 
passing conference reports next week, and keep ourselves busy until 
that 2 o'clock departure time.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I have a question regarding the 
Regulatory Burden Relief Act. I know the gentleman from Iowa, the 
chairman of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, has a 
thankless task in trying to put together the right mix of policies to 
try to get something that could be supported on the Floor.
  Is it possible that the minority could be informed about what the 
rule consideration will be in terms of getting amendments to the 
Committee on Rules by a given time? Are we going to be taking it up on 
Tuesday? Is there going to be ample opportunity to amend that 
legislation on the floor? Will that come under a closed rule, or on 
suspension?
  Mr. ARMEY. Again, I thank the gentleman for that inquiry. The 
Committee on Rules is discussing bringing that

[[Page H10347]]

up on Tuesday. If the gentleman would accept, I think what we perhaps 
can best proceed at this time by having the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Solomon] and the gentleman from Massachusettss [Mr. Moakley] 
conclude their discussions about their planning for the committee, and 
then we will make every effort in conjunction with the committee to see 
that all members are notified of the meeting time and try to 
accommodate any efforts to bring amendment requests before the 
committee.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, let me yield to my friend, the 
gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams], for any question he may have.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Speaker, I have no questions. If the minority 
leader is completed with the schedule, I would ask my friend to yield 
to continue the dialog which was preceding prior to the announcement of 
the schedule.
  Mr. ARMEY. If the gentleman from California would yield further, if 
it is in order, I would like to make my unanimous consent requests, and 
then, if in fact it is the will of the Chair to let the gentleman 
continue in this in order for the other Members to make their 
discourse, I actually have other things on my schedule I would like to 
do.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The time of the gentleman 
from California has expired.

                          ____________________