[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 127 (Wednesday, August 2, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H8280]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT NO. 2-2 OUT OF ORDER DURING 
         CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1555, COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1995

  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the 
Committee of the Whole resumes consideration of the bill H.R. 1555 
pursuant to House Resolution 207 on the legislative day of August 3, 
1995, it shall be in order to consider the amendment numbered 2-2 in 
House Report 104-223 notwithstanding earlier consideration of the 
amendment numbered 2-3 in that report on the legislative day of August 
2, 1995.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, 
could I inquire of the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on 
Commerce if that means that the debate on the Conyers amendment would 
not be tonight, but would be tomorrow? Is that the intent of the 
gentleman's unanimous-consent request?
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. DINGELL. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, Further reserving the right to 
object, I had asked for the same consideration. I am supporting the 
Stupak amendment, which is only 10 minutes of debate time, and it asks 
for the same consideration. The gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Schaefer], 
the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak], and myself are in continuing 
negotiations, and it is quite likely that we would have an agreement so 
that there would not have to be even a vote on that amendment, and I 
was told that we could not do that.
  Well, if we cannot do that, I am going to object to the gentleman 
from Michigan doing it.
  Now if we can get unanimous consent that our little 10-minute debate 
can also be tomorrow, then I will not object.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would permit, that has 
been discussed with the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers]. He feels 
no objection. I have discussed it with other members of the committee 
and other Members managing the legislation. This meets the approval of 
the leadership on the Republican side.
  I would urge the gentleman to go along. It does not prejudice the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak], who happens to be a very close 
friend and comes from the same State I do.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. If we could get agreement that the Stupak 
amendment, which is only 10 minutes of debate, could be tomorrow, then 
I will withdraw my reservation of objection.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I have no 
objection to the gentleman making that unanimous-consent request.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, the gentleman 
from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania [Mr. Fattah] is just about to make a 
privileged motion.
  Now we are going to get along here, we are going to have unanimous-
consents, we are going to try and move along. Many of us share the 
discomfort of the hour. But look. We want to get out on our recess, but 
is the gentleman going to move to adjourn, because if so, it is going 
to be difficult to agree to much around here.
  So, I do not know if the gentleman wishes to disclose what his 
privileged motion is, but I suspect it is going to be to adjourn.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am not sure of the parliamentary 
procedure, but, if I have the right, I would ask that the Dingell 
unanimous-consent request be amended so that the Stupak amendment will 
also be rolled until tomorrow.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Further reserving the right to object, I yield 
to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman withhold his unanimous-
consent request and let me make mine?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will entertain one unanimous-
consent request at this time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of 
objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I 
would like to ask the gentleman what the purpose of wanting to change 
the order of consideration of the amendments is. Is he concerned that 
no one will be here to pay attention to the Conyers amendment if the 
unanimous-consent request is not granted?
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. DINGELL. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] had indicated 
he wishes to do business with his amendment tomorrow. I think that is a 
fine idea, and I would like to see him have that opportunity.
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Where is the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Conyers], and why is he not making this request?
  Mr. DINGELL. It just so happens, I will inform the gentleman, that I 
am, according to what I understand, the manager of the bill on this 
side, and I am simply trying to proceed and carry out those functions.
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  

                          ____________________