On the recordApril 23, 1998
Mr. Chairman, we will now find out if on the Republican side sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I opposed an amendment that was offered before by the gentleman from California that would have created a brand-new privilege, a parent-child privilege, not on the grounds that it was an unthinkable idea but that dealing with a subject of that complexity and that impact for the first time on the floor of the House without having gone through any of our procedure was not a good idea. The majority agreed with me. I make the same argument here. Actually, this is not so much an amendment as it is a periodical. I have gotten four versions of it. I understand that. I am holding all four versions of it. First, it said earlier today it would only apply if the defendant was not primarily engaged in a profit-seeking purpose. Then we got profit-seeking purpose or committed bodily injury. Then we got, we struck bodily injury, and we got criminal offense. Then we got a conforming amendment. I do not criticize the drafters. They are doing a very good job, but this is a work in progress. We have gotten four versions of it because they are trying to deal with a complex subject. I understand that this is a response to a decision that was just made, but let me make a point that I thought was clear. You run the place. You control the committees. You could schedule a hearing next week. You could schedule a markup the week after.
Source
govinfo.gov




