```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 81 (Tuesday, May 16, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H4977-H4978]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

     ESTABLISHING TIME LIMITATIONS FOR CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONAL 
         AMENDMENTS TO H.R. 961, CLEAN WATER AMENDMENTS OF 1995

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that on the clean 
water bill which we will be considering in the next few moments that we 
establish time limits as follows:
  In title VIII on wetlands:
  One hour on the Boehlert substitute to title VIII; 30 minutes on the 
Gilchrest amendment to delete wetland delineation; and 20 minutes on 
all other amendments which will be considered, excluding title X for 
which no time limit will be set, and specifically the amendments to 
which I refer, which will have 20-minute time limits, are as follows:
  The Gilchrest-Dingell amendment on migratory waterfowl; the 
Frelinghuysen amendment on delegated programs; the Wyden amendment to 
prohibit compensation; the Minge amendment with regard to permits for 
the Department of Agriculture; the Riggs amendment on certain 
wastewater treatment facilities; the Taylor amendment to require 
consideration of beneficial uses of dredged material; the Pallone 
amendment, which will be two amendments en bloc; and the Franks 
amendment to limit changes in title IX, with the time to be equally 
divided by the proponent and opponent of the amendments.

                              {time}  1230

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). Is there objection 
to the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?

[[Page H4978]]

  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I would like 
to inquire of the chairman of the committee, as he has just outlined, 
from what I can garner on this, that takes us up to roughly 6 hours and 
40 minutes, if we have votes on all of the 10 amendments being offered, 
plus the 1 hour on the Boehlert, 30 minutes on the Gilchrest and 20 
minutes, altogether that takes us a total, including voting, of 6 hours 
40 minutes. Even if we start right now that would take us to 7:10 this 
evening.
  I am wondering, given the request being made here, my preference 
right now is to just agree to the 1 hour on the Boehlert substitute, or 
to then have a time agreement through completion of our work in the 
Committee on the Whole. That would then take us through the completion 
of title X as well.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MINETA. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my good friend that would be 
my preference also, but we have not been able to work out an agreement 
on title X at this point. We are still attempting to work out an 
agreement on title X, so at this point we only have agreement up to 
through title IX.
  I would also point out to my friend that some of the amendments I 
believe will be accepted, so we should not have recorded votes and will 
not take a full 20 minutes. And I would hope that even on some of the 
contentious amendments, we will not use the full time.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Speaker, further reserving my right to object, it 
seems to me that without some idea about what is happening, what is 
going to happen in title X, I would have some reservations on the time 
limitation that is being outlined here. I am wondering, pending our 
being able to complete that discussion, could we just agree to the 1 
hour on the Boehlert substitute for the time being?
  Mr. SHUSTER. Until the conclusion of the 1 hour consideration, I have 
no problem. What about Gilchrest as well, to include Boehlert and 
Gilchrest?
  Mr. MINETA. Thirty minutes on the gentleman from
   Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest], that would be fine with me.

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I revise my unanimous consent request to 
include only the first two amendments, the Boehlert amendment for 1 
hour and the Gilchrest amendment for 30 minutes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is it the Chair's understanding that would 
include other amendments thereto?
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I would expect to make a unanimous-consent 
request on the remaining amendments at the conclusion of either 
Boehlert or Gilchrest, but my unanimous-consent request at this point 
is only for the Boehlert and the Gilchrest amendments and the 
amendments thereto.
  Mr. MINETA. Further reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, let 
me yield to our colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton].
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. It is my 
understanding that title X will in effect act as an amendment to a 
previous amendment brought to the floor and passed relative to the 
Coastal Zone Management Act.
  If the new title is accepted and is voted affirmatively, I would like 
to reserve the right, if that is the necessary language, to offer a 
substitute to the bill, which would in effect amend title X. I 
understand that I have the right to do that under the current rule, and 
I would like to affirm that that is in fact the case and that nothing 
being done here would abridge that right.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I would say to 
my friend nothing would abridge that right. This does not deal with 
title X at all and my friend would be protected.
  Mr. SAXTON. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Speaker, again, based on the 1 hour for the Boehlert 
substitute and the 30 minutes on the Gilchrest amendment, I have no 
objection.
  Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is the understanding of the Chair the 
distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania wants to pursue the unanimous 
consent request?
  Mr. SHUSTER. The Chair is correct.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  

                          ____________________
```