```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 93 (Thursday, June 8, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H5735-H5736]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                          LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

  (Mrs. KENNELLY asked and was given 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?
  [[Page H5736]]
  
  Mrs. KENNELLY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. I am sure, as the ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Rules over there would attest to, that we do not intend to 
place a time limit certain. There will be 25 to 30 hours of debate on 
general debate and the amendment process, but there will be a assigned 
time for each amendment as we go along. We do not intend to have a time 
certain to cut off debate at all.
  The points are well-taken.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield 
further?
  Mrs. KENNELLY. I yield again to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear that from 
the gentleman. I would hope that in the future if we do have a time 
certain there would be exclusions, you know, words being taken down or 
quorum calls, et cetera. The only thing I would like to say though as I 
am told that in accordance with past practice the minority on the 
Committee on Rules has been given a tentative list of amendments, and 
the gentlewoman from Colorado is conspicuous by her absence from that 
list. I am told that there is a tentative list out and the amendment 
that the gentlewoman from Colorado is proposing, the President's 
numbers, was not on that list. I hope that that was very tentative and 
soon to be corrected, because it does seem to us a major omission for 
that not to be there.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. KENNELLY. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DeLAY. In response to the gentleman from Massachusetts' comments, 
and I do appreciate his comments, because it is a very important bill, 
I might warn Members that because it is such an important bill we could 
go late into the evenings the 3 days that we will be on this bill.
  Mrs. KENNELLY. The gentleman is saying that there is a possibility 
that we will go late Tuesday and Wednesday and Thursday?
  Mr. DeLAY. It is highly likely that we will go late on Tuesday, 
Wednesday, and even Thursday.
  Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield again to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I just want to hope that the House dining 
room has got the television on and heard what the gentleman said.
  Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Speaker, quickly I would just like to ask one 
other thing. I notice on the schedule we got that morning hours on 
Tuesday have not been there. Is that just an oversight?
  Mr. DeLAY. If the gentlewoman will yield, that is just an oversight. 
We will have morning hours.
  Mrs. KENNELLY. I thank the gentleman.
  

                          ____________________
```