Neil Abercrombie

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. ``That a Member represents that are intended primarily for promotional purposes, such [[Page H 13092]] as display or free distribution, and are of minimal value to any individual recipient''?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Reclaiming my time, is the gentleman referring to, on page 7, ``donations of products from the State.''----

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, could the gentleman repeat the language at this time, please.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, we are exchanging these words verbally right now. I am looking at the amendment to House Resolution 250, gift reform. The amendment retains exceptions for, and then it lists quite a number of items. If I understand it correctly, there is now a unanimous-consent request that language be added to that list of exemptions; am I correct?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the editorial clarity, but I am trying to find out here from the chairman of the Committee on Rules, who is now being advised on all sides, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your patience in this, but I do think it is crucial to the understanding of the bill before us.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I am exactly clear as to what the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] just said. Mr. Solomon just said that in regard to what you just named--greeting cards and baseball caps--that will now be allowed. Presumably, had that not been included at this point, or the attempt made to include it at this point, you could get greeting cards which would be illegal. You could get baseball caps which would be illegal. The question I asked, and why I am reserving the right to object is, I am trying to find out--excuse me, not I--but if we do not list everything that is allowed, does that mean that that which does not appear in this specific list of exemptions may very well at some point be considered as being illegal and will we have to find that out as we go along?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, continuing my reservation of objection, what concerns me here is, the reason I raised the question, the reason that I am doing this is that I am concerned that we are now arriving at a point where we are listing what is proscribed, or are we listing what is included in that which is accepted? If it is not specifically named in this legislation, does that mean then that we run the risk of having it considered something which is forbidden?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] or the gentleman from New York, if he feels he can contribute to the explanation.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, could we have it explained once more? Perhaps the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] or the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] would explain at this juncture precisely what it is that will be allowed or disallowed, whichever makes the most sense in terms of an explanation. Mr. Speaker, I yield to either the gentleman from Texas or the gentleman from New York.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to object.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, is this being made available in writing to the Members?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order. [[Page H 13091]]

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I have not objected yet.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I understand that there are Members who are now prepared to vote. I am glad they have all received wisdom. I do not pretend to have it. My parliamentary inquiry is: Should the Gingrich proposal as presently before us be defeated, would we then be voting on the underlying legislation which would contain the two elements which do not now exist, as I understand it, in the Gingrich proposal because the unanimous-consent was objected to?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, maybe I did not state it correctly, and I will make a further parliamentary inquiry then. There are obviously Members who want to vote.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I cannot hear you. Mr. Speaker, I am doing my best to make a parliamentary inquiry within the boundaries of the rules.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. The parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker, is that if I, or anybody else on the floor, wishes to vote for a bill which contains the two elements as enunciated by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant], would I then vote against the Gingrich proposal as presently before the body and then vote, should that fail, for the underlying legislation? If I wanted to vote for a bill which contained all of the exemptions listed in the underlying bill, minus those two, which I believe would have been added had there not been objection to the unanimous-consent request made by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant]----

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I will stay with the parliamentary inquiry, and I withdraw my unanimous-consent request.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I think I need to get a clear understanding. I will do it under the parliamentary inquiry, but I thought it might be more in order if there was an opportunity for members to maybe, perhaps, discuss it.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. By me.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. It is to extend the time of debate another 2 minutes.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Does that mean, any further parliamentary inquiry because I want to understand the meaning of it, and I think I am entitled to that before I vote, I am entitled to understand it. If everybody else in the room understands it, that is fine; I intend to have a full understanding before I vote. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend the time by 2 minutes.