[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 37 (Friday, March 27, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H1684-H1685]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland will state his 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, obviously I have not had an opportunity to 
review the precedents, but I have been here for many years, and rarely, 
if ever, have I seen a Speaker determined that the unanimous consent 
for 1 minute, while the schedule was being discussed, and the substance 
of that schedule being discussed----
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, this is not a parliamentary 
inquiry.

[[Page H1685]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, my question is, under what precedents or 
practices does the Speaker make such a ruling, and on what does the 
Speaker rely in terms of what a reasonable time for such inquiry is?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair was trying to have a reasonable 
time of recognition. The Chair granted an unusually long period of time 
for discussion. The calendar was no longer really under discussion. The 
Chair has ruled. The House has important business to move on to.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry before we 
go to that.
  We have on the schedule a number of 5-minute special orders and 1-
hour special orders, and I just wonder, do the 1-minutes that are now 
being requested take precedence over that?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As is customary the Chair intends to 
recognize 1-minutes first.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

                          ____________________