[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 182 (Thursday, November 16, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H13098-H13099]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 POSTPONING VOTES AND LIMITING DEBATE TIME ON AMENDMENTS TO H.R. 2564, 
                    LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1995

  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
during further consideration of H.R. 2564 pursuant to House Resolution 
269 the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone until a 
time during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a 
request for a recorded vote on any amendment, and that the Chairman of 
the Committee of the Whole may reduce to not less than 5 minutes the 
time for voting by electronic device on any postponed question that 
immediately follows another vote by electronic device without 
intervening business, provided that the time for voting by electronic 
device on the first in any series of questions shall be not less than 
15 minutes; and further, that debate on each amendment to the bill and 
any amendments thereto be limited to 30 minutes equally divided and 
controlled by the proponent of the amendment to the bill and an 
opponent.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  Mr. SKAGGS. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, and I do not 
expect that I will object, but I just want to inquire of the gentleman 
if it is further his understanding that agreement has been reached 
informally with the proponents of certain of the amendments that have 
been noticed on this bill that they will not come up tonight, namely 
the amendment protected by the rule offered by the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. McIntosh], the amendment protected in the rule to be 
offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook], and two other 
amendments offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh] dealing 
with the same general subject?
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SKAGGS. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the 
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] and the gentleman from Indiana 
[Mr. McIntosh] have both agreed that those amendments would not be 
brought before the House this evening.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SKAGGS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Let me give the gentleman further 
assurance. It is my guess that there being a significant majority of 
Members left that have any brains, that within about 20 minutes after 
this unanimous-consent request there will not be any Members left in 
this place. Therefore any amendment that is offered would be at the 
suffrage of people who did not want to suggest the quorum problem, so I 
would assure my friend, if there was any problem, that all of a sudden 
we would be deterred by the lack of a quorum.
  Mr. SKAGGS. I appreciate the gentleman's further assurances.
  Further on my reservation, the \1/2\ hour equally divided debate time 
that was included in the UC request would apply to each and all 
amendments to the bill either considered tonight or at such subsequent 
date as we might resume debate on this legislation; is that correct?
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. That is correct.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentleman yield to me further 
under his reservation of objection?
  Mr. SKAGGS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Let me say to the gentleman who has been 
very responsible for this, and I appreciate our ability to work 
together, while we would have the power under this unanimous-consent 
request to roll votes when we resumed, I would assume that a spirit of 
comity would govern whether or not we use that; that is, if there was 
not agreement on both sides, we would not roll the votes when we come 
back at it on the next time.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. It would certainly be my desire that that 
power be exercised in consultation with the minority and other 
interested parties so that the interests of all Members of the House 
could be fully protected.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Further reserving the right to object, and in the same 
vein, I think, and as I understand it, there are some logical groupings 
of amendments, 

[[Page H 13099]]
and it might make sense to apply some sense of germaneness and mutual 
relevancy as we look at which might be rolled, and I assume the 
gentleman would agree to take those kinds of factors into consideration 
as well.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Yes; of course the Chair will be making the 
decisions as to when the rolling of amendments will take place and who 
will be recognized to offer an amendment, but it would certainly be my 
desire to work with all Members to take into account those 
considerations.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would 
yield, let me say the subcommittee chairman has been perfectly fair, 
and I think there is no problem.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________