[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 9]
[House]
[Page 12141]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



      ESTABLISHING TIME LIMITATIONS ON AMENDMENTS DURING FURTHER 
   CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4690, DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND 
  STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during further 
consideration of H.R. 4690 in the Committee of the Whole pursuant to 
House Resolution 529 and the order of the House of June 22, 2000, 
except as specified, each amendment shall be debatable only for 10 
minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent; amendment No. 23 shall be debatable only for 30 minutes 
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and 
amendment No. 60 shall be debatable only for 60 minutes equally divided 
and controlled by the proponent and an opponent.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Kentucky?
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, let me first 
tell my chairman that I will not be objecting so that he will not get a 
heart attack right now.
  First let me say that I still have very serious problems with this 
process which allows people who go up front with amendments the first 
day or so of deliberation on a bill and certain sections of the bill to 
go up front to get a certain kind of attention and a certain kind of 
input in time and then the second part or latter parts of the bill and 
folks who are either junior Members or have work to do within those 
parts of the bill get less attention.
  I would hope in the future when we sit down to deal with one of these 
bills, we come to some agreements early on because I just think it is 
unfair. However, knowing the need we have to finish this bill and being 
part of the gentleman's desire to keep this bill moving and improving 
the bill, I will not object.
  However, I would like to ask the gentleman if he knows at this point 
specifically how many amendments we have left.
  Mr. ROGERS. If the gentleman will yield, there are 36 amendments at 
best count we have at this moment.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the peacekeeping 
amendment will be allocated 1 hour, the Hostettler guns amendment will 
be given 30 minutes, and then every other amendment will receive 10 
minutes.
  Mr. ROGERS. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Kentucky?
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, 
and I will not object, but just to express my frustration of hearing so 
much time spent on nongermane amendments and my amendment that is now 
being allocated 10 minutes is an amendment that allows the Bureau of 
Economic Analysis, one of the few areas that Alan Greenspan, the 
Chairman of the Fed, has said publicly he thinks needs more funding. 
The ranking member of the Committee on the Budget has indicated that he 
thinks the BEA needs more funding. This will preclude that kind of 
testimony. Two of the Republican Members that have been suggested as 
possible chairman of the Committee on the Budget have indicated their 
interest in expanding the allocation for BEA, and they will not have 
that opportunity at 4 p.m. Monday.
  I am concerned again like the ranking member suggested that early 
amendments utilize so much of the time that cannot be considered any 
more crucial, any more important or any more dynamic as we move ahead 
with this budget. I simply express my concern on the decisions and the 
frustration on the majority leader's part and on the ranking member's 
part.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. I think that we are going to have to address the problem 
that is being talked about here in some fashion in the procedures under 
which we operate. I think the Committee on Rules is going to have to 
look at perhaps time limitations so that everyone is entitled and given 
some degree of protection that their amendment will receive adequate 
time and not be hogged, if you will, by the early risers on a bill. It 
is not fair. The only way I think we can address it is for the 
Committee on Rules to come up with some procedure that guarantees that 
if you are at the end of the bill, you can get the same kind of 
attention that the people at the beginning part of the bill get.
  I think the gentleman makes a real legitimate point, as does the 
ranking member.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SERRANO. I want to clarify my point. I am not for time 
limitations. What I am for is for uniformity. While I do not like time 
limitations, I personally think that there is a contradiction in this 
House. We celebrate our democracy but we hate debate. And even if it is 
debate we do not like, that is part of who we are as a Nation.
  My opinion is just the opposite, the 5-minute rule and just let it 
go. If that is what it takes, 3, 4 days, that is what it takes.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, on the first 
12 amendments we did very well on a lot of debate, and that is part of 
my concern.
  Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Kentucky?
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________