[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 1 (Wednesday, January 4, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H104]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                             GENERAL LEAVE

  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks, and include therein extraneous material, on H.R. 1, the bill 
just passed.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, a point of order. I would 
think that that motion would be that Members would have 5 days to 
extend their remarks, but under the new rules I do not see how they 
could revise remarks unmade, so Members would be allowed to extend. But 
I think under the new rule giving Members the chance to review unmade 
remarks is out of order, and they could only extend in a different 
typeface.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, might I be heard on the point of order?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Lazio of New York). The Chair would 
advise that Members' remarks can only be revised for technical reasons.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. But my parliamentary inquiry, Mr. 
Speaker, is how can a Member make a technical correction to things they 
never said yet? If we are taking this request, it is Members who have 
not said anything yet, and it would let them put something into the 
Record as if they said something, and under the new rules all they can 
do, it seems to me, is to extend. I would hope this is not allowing 
someone to say something they already said, and I just do not want 
Members to have the wrong impression.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair advised the body earlier that the 
changes cannot be substantive, that they can only be technical in 
nature.
  Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Connecticut?
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, as was stated 
from the Chair earlier, the Committee on House Oversight will 
promulgate rules and language to deal with this. The gentleman from 
Massachusetts is correct. We are in a slight conundrum right now 
because we are utilizing words that have been used historically, the 
classic revise and extend. More properly I think it should be correct 
and extend. And although we are in this situation now where we are 
still using the what would be archaic language, we will provide the 
appropriate language and the structure for dealing with that early 
tomorrow morning for the gentleman.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I 
gather revolutions would be confusing even to those who are trying to 
promulgate them so I appreciate that.
  Mr. THOMAS. Order will come out of the structure, I assure the 
gentleman from Massachusetts. And I will not object.
  Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Connecticut?
  There was no objection.


  

                          ____________________