mr. chairman , i yield myself such time as i may consume . 
i do oppose the amendment . 
i have some empathy for the first amendment offered by the gentleman from new york , but certainly not this one . 
clearly , if there is a bipartisan element to this whole idea of getting two-thirds of the people supporting it , it is the congressional gold medal , and i think the gentleman somewhat undercuts his own argument by giving us the figures that he did because , in fact , i do not think most members , when they are approached by a member carrying that bill , really are concerned about whether it is a republican sponsor or a democrat sponsor . 
they are concerned about who that individual being honored is . 
and just by the definition of having two-thirds sponsor would indicate a strong bipartisan support and historically that has always been the case . 
and i think that the amendment would tend to compartmentalize the authors of these gold medal resolutions that would be difficult to enforce and perhaps would cause some kind of a rush to try to get the necessary signatures prematurely . 
so i think it is really difficult for the committee , for example . 
as the gentleman knows , who has served on my committee with great distinction , we pride ourselves on the bipartisanship of the committee and the leadership of the committee , and we have continued to do so . 
so i think this is superfluous at best and , as a result , would oppose the amendment . 
mr. chairman , i reserve the balance of my time . 
