June 8, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 5735

and unable to cast my vote. Had I been

present, I would have voted ‘‘no.’’

Ms. M

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

CKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I was

funavoidably detained on rollcall vote

No. 366. Had I been present, I would

AUTHORIZING THE CLERK TO

have voted ‘‘no.’’

MAKE CORRECTIONS IN ENfGROSSMENT OF H.R. 1561, AMERICAN OVERSEAS INTERESTS ACT

OF 1995

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent that in the engrossment of the bill, H.R. 1561, the Clerk be

authorized to correct section numbers,

cross references, punctuation, and indentation, and to make any other technical and conforming changes necessary to reflect the actions of the

House.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.

RIGGS). Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New

York?

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask

There was no objection.

GENERAL LEAVE

funanimous consent all members may

have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks, and to

include extraneous material, on H.R.

1561, the bill just adopted.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there

objection to the request of the gentleman from New York?

There was no objection.

(Mrs. KENNELLY asked and was

LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

fgiven permission to address the House

for 1 minute.)

Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Speaker, I ask

for this time for purpose of inquiring

about the schedule from the gentleman

from Texas [Mr. DELAY].

Mr. DELAY. Mr. Speaker will the

gentlewoman yield?

Mrs. KENNELLY. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. DELAY. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

The House will not be in session on

Monday, June 12.

On Tuesday the House will meet at 12

o’clock p.m. to consider H.R. 1530, the

fiscal year 1996 National Defense Authorization Act, subject to a rule.

Members should be advised that recorded votes may take place beginning

at 12 noon on Tuesday.

Wednesday and the balance of the

next week the House will meet at 10

a.m. to complete consideration of H.R.

1530.

After completion of the defense

measure we plan to take up the 1996

military construction appropriations

bill. It is our hope to have Members on

their way home to their families and

their districts by no later than 3 p.m.

on Friday.

Mrs. KENNELLY. I thank the gentleman. I yield to the gentlewoman

from Colorado.

Mrs. SCHROEDER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I am very concerned about what I understand the

rule is going to be next week. Many of

us were not able to offer very critical

amendments this week to the foreign

aid bill, and next week I had an amendment to the defense authorization bill

that would bring the authorization bill

down $9.5 billion to the level the Pentagon asked for. It is my understanding

that will not be made in order and I am

very concerned about that, because I

understood we were going to be allowed

to at least debate fundamental differences and people of the committee,

of which I am on the committee and a

senior ranking member on the committee, would like to debate this fundamental deference.

So I am very concerned about whether next week we are just going to be

here doing some pro forma pantomine

rather than getting to the fundamental

issues of the defense committee and

these incredible markups that have

happened.

Mr. DELAY. Mr. Speaker, will the

gentlewoman yield?

Mrs. KENNELLY. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. DELAY. I am sure the chairman

of the Committee on Rules would like

to speak to the rule on this bill. All I

can say is that this is a very important

piece of legislation. We are hoping to

let many issues come to the floor under

this legislation. There are a lot of

Members who wanted amendments; unfortunately we could not accommodate

all of them, but the chairman from the

Committee on Rules can probably

speak to this.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the

gentlewoman yield?

Mrs. KENNELLY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. SOLOMON. I say to my good

friend, the gentlewoman from Colorado

[Mrs. SCHROEDER], I am not aware of

any amendments being denied as yet.

We are still in the process at this late

hour of consulting with both the minority on the Committee on National

Security and with the minority on the

Committee on Rules as to what amendments will be made in order. The rule

will be, as it has been in the past, a

structured rule.

However, in our preliminary discussions with the minority on the two different committees, I believe they believe this is going to be a fair rule to

all Members. Certainly we are going to

try to take all of the major issues, significant issues, into consideration.

As soon as I finish this colloquy we

will go up to the Committee on Rules

and finish the consulting, and, hopefully, within the next hour or two pass

a rule.

Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, will

the gentlewoman yield?

Mrs. KENNELLY. I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado.

Mrs. SCHROEDER. I am then hoping

what I am hearing is that you have not

made a final decision on this. I know

that the ranking member on the Committee on National Security has spoken to the Speaker, has spoken to all

sorts of people. We feel this is one of

the most fundamental issues there, and

we thought people had come here to debate reasonable levels of expenditures.

To deny our side the right to offer a

very basic amendment that would

bring the defense budget, the bloated

defense budget, in my opinion, back

down to where the Commander in Chief

had it and the Pentagon had it I think

would be absolutely outrageous, so I

am glad to hear the Committee on

Rules has not done that and that is a

malicious rumor, and I certainly hope

the gentleman from New York will not

do that, or we are going to have to declare war or something.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr.

Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mrs. KENNELLY. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr.

Speaker, I want to reinforce what the

gentlewoman from Colorado said. It is

inconceivable to me that the proposal

on the budget made by the President

would not come forward. I want to add,

I have been disturbed, I had hoped we

had had some progress on the rule, but

I do not really believe that we have. In

the first place, 3 days to do the defense

bill is inadequate.

Now in fairness to the chairman of

the Committee on Rules, given an inadequate amount of time there is not

much he can do about that, but I would

say to the leadership on the Republican

side, 3 days to do the whole defense

bill, which I assume includes debating

the rule, which includes the general debate, and then amendments on this

enormous amount of money which is in

fact being increased, is clearly going to

be inadequate, and we are seeing a restriction.

In particular I would like to urge and

I would say to my friend, the chairman

of Committee on Rules, if he is going

to continue to do these rules that have

a 6 hour and 8 hour, in the name of

basic fairness, quorum calls should not

come out of that time. If there is a debate about someone’s words being

taken down, it should not come out of

that time. The problem now is that you

give us the 6 hours and the clock does

not stop. It is like a basketball game

where the time outs and the fouls and

everything else just run the clock, and

then obviously allows people to game

it, and even if they are not trying to

game it, it is a problem.

So to them a rule with a hour limit

if it does not exclude from that time

things like quorum calls, fights over

points of order, et cetera, we are clearly making a mockery of the process,

and I would hope that that would not

continue to happen.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the

gentlewoman yield?