Congressional Record, Volume 141 Issue 25 (Wednesday, February 8, 1995)

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 25 (Wednesday, February 8, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H1379-H1380]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

{time} 1150
REQUEST FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF PROCEDURES FOR CONSIDERATION OF A CERTAIN
AMENDMENT TO H.R. 666, EXCLUSIONARY RULE REFORM ACT OF 1995

Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House
resolves itself into the Committee of the Whole and takes up H.R. 666,
there be a time limitation on my amendment of 50 minutes, divided
equally between myself and an opponent to the amendment, and that no
amendments be permitted to my amendment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Lazio of New York). Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from Missouri?
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I do
intend to object, mainly because I do not mind negotiating on limiting
time on an amendment, but I do mind limiting the ability for Members to
amend the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I yield to the
gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff].
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I just want to bring up the fact that the
gentleman from Missouri has raised two questions: A motion to limit
time and a motion to make his own amendment unamendable. I wonder if
the gentleman could explain why the second portion of that request is
there.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, continuing my reservation of objection, I
yield to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer].
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, I had not planned to. When I first
negotiated the time limit, I was going to make it in the Committee of
the Whole. And it was only going to be basically on 45 minutes. And
then I thought 50 minutes was easier to divide than 45.
But from that side of the aisle I heard that some member of the
committee from that side of the aisle may even try to preempt me on
this amendment or there may be amendments to my amendment or there may
be other things to take away my amendment.
Now, I have worked up this amendment, and I would like to have the
opportunity to offer it. I am just trying to preclude that and restate
my stand on one issue, and that is the BATF. I would just talk about
that and limit the time.
I am willing to limit the time as long as we can do that, but if we
are going to be getting into a wrangle on this thing, then I am not
going to agree to a time limit.
Does the gentleman understand that? We may be here 3 or 4 hours.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, continuing my reservation of objection, I
understand the gentleman's concern about the time limit. And I might
concur and negotiate with the gentleman over a time limit, but if the
gentleman would have consulted with the majority on his amendment, I
think the majority could have worked with him.
There are many Members on our side that do not want to be limited in
being able to amend the gentleman's amendment or even substitute for
the gentleman's amendment, or in some cases members of the committee
may want to offer the gentleman's amendment, members who are in
agreement with the gentleman.
I think it is the privilege of the majority to ask for cooperation
and ask for negotiation on unanimous-consent requests.
Mr. Speaker, continuing my reservation of objection, I yield to the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, several things the gentleman
said made some sense to me, but then I thought I heard the gentleman
say some members of the majority might want to offer the gentleman's
amendment. That one seemed a little disturbing. The gentleman from
Missouri has been working on this amendment. The gentleman is saying
that some members of the majority have plans to sort of show the
respect for intellectual property rights of the Chinese Government and
steal the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I would not characterize it, in responding to
the gentleman, as stealing the gentleman's amendment. There are many on
our side of the aisle that feel like they could support the gentleman's
amendment if it was changed in certain ways. We want the opportunity to
investigate that and to do that. To just arbitrarily say that we cannot
amend the gentleman's amendment or substitute for it or do something
else with it, we just cannot agree to that.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will
continue to yield, then I misunderstood. There is no effort to try to
preempt the gentleman's right to offer that amendment as his amendment
since he is the one who came up with it.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I think those Members that are on the
Committee on the Judiciary, by the rules and by tradition, have the
right to be recognized before the gentleman from Missouri. And whether
a Member from that committee offers whatever amendment that may pertain
to the substance of the gentleman's amendment, we are not prepared
right now to say whether that is going to happen or not.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. So the gentleman would have to satisfy
himself with that flattery which imitation is the sincerest form of?
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I understood the gentleman's
question.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I apologize for being unclear. The
gentleman from Missouri, having come up with this, the notion that he
has to come up with the amendment, having
[[Page H1380]] put it forward, and then loses it because somebody else
decides to put his name on it, seems to me unfortunate. But if the
gentleman insists that that is what the rules allow, I suppose that is
what happens.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, continuing my reservation of objection, I
yield to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer].
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, I recognize that that is what the rules
allow. If the gentleman wishes to object, let him object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Missouri?
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.

____________________