[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 147 (Thursday, November 14, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H8824-H8825]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 333, BANKRUPTCY ABUSE PREVENTION AND CONSUMER 
                         PROTECTION ACT OF 2002

  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I call up the conference report to accompany 
the bill (H.R. 333) to amend title 11, United States Code, and for 
other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Pursuant to clause 8, 
subsection C of rule XXII, the conference report is considered read.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order under clause 9 of 
rule XXII that the conference report includes matter outside the scope 
of the differences between the two Houses that were committed to the 
conference committee for resolution. I specifically cite section 331 of 
the conference report which is described in the joint explanatory 
statement of the managers as having no counterpart in either the House 
bill or the Senate amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does any other Member wish to be heard on 
the point of order?
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, I wish to be heard on the point of order.
  Mr. Speaker, I gather that this point of order is being lodged by the 
leadership of the House against the very bill that the leadership of 
the House was trying to persuade Members to vote for a couple of hours 
ago. So my concern is, how did a bill that was perfectly in order at 
about 8 o'clock fall out of order?

                              {time}  0100

  And I am concerned that we have a situation in which the leadership 
of this House apparently consciously brought forward a bill that they 
knew to be violative of the rules of the House, sought to pass it, and 
when not enough arms could be twisted, they now have become late 
converts to the rules.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. FRANK. So, Mr. Speaker, I do have a parliamentary inquiry. I am 
sorry the gentlemen do not want to hear this flip-flop, but I did not 
bring it up. I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker, which I 
believe is regular order. You might want to explain to a few of them 
over there. I understand on that side knowledge and commitment to the 
rules is a sometime thing, but a parliamentary inquiry is in order.
  Is this bill against which the point of order has been lodged exactly 
the same bill that the leadership was trying to get people to vote for 
a few hours ago?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman has not raised a 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. FRANK. The parliamentary inquiry is, is this the same piece of 
legislation on which we voted a couple of hours ago? I think a 
parliamentary inquiry is relevant when we ask about what is in fact 
before the House. I have not had a chance to read it. Is this the same 
bill that the House was voting on a few hours ago?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The conference report called up by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) that is the object of the 
pending point of order was earlier the object of House Resolution 606, 
which the House rejected. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) 
may make a motion after the Chair rules. He has not made that and it is 
not pending before the House now.
  Mr. FRANK. Pardon me, Mr. Speaker, but the gentleman from Missouri 
(Mr. Blunt) has made a point of order against something. I guess that 
is the question. The parliamentary inquiry is against what it is that 
the gentleman from Missouri has lodged a point of order? You said does 
anyone want to be heard on the point of order. He made a point of 
order. Against what vehicle did he make a point of order, then?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The point of order is against the conference 
report against which no points of order have been waived.
  Mr. FRANK. So the point of order is against the very conference 
report that this leadership which is now making the point of order 
tried to pass. I have

[[Page H8825]]

heard about being born again in some context, but born again 
parliamentarian is a new concept to me, and I think it ought to be 
clear. I want to be heard on the point of order, and I want to say that 
I want to defend the House leadership. If you sustain this point of 
order, you will be ruling that the very bill this House leadership 
tried to get majority Members to vote for a few hours ago was out of 
order. I do not think we ought to have the ruling calling into question 
the fealty of the House Republican leadership to the Rules of the 
House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does any other Member wish to be heard on 
the point of order?
  If not, for the reasons stated by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Blunt) the point of order is sustained and the conference report is 
vitiated.

                          ____________________