[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 50 (Thursday, March 22, 2007)]
[House]
[Page H2863]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES

  Mr. SOUDER. Madam Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. SOUDER. Did I understand because of the motion to recommit that 
the gentleman from Michigan has asked us to not vote and delay 
proceedings?
  I didn't understand the ruling of the Chair.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Further proceedings have been postponed.
  Mr. LINDER. Parliamentary inquiry, please.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. LINDER. What I heard the Speaker say was under the rule it is 
postponed.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. LINDER. Is it in the rule that there will be no vote on this 
issue?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Consideration of H.R. 1433 has been 
postponed under section 2 of House Resolution 260.
  Mr. SOUDER. Parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. SOUDER. Proceeding on this bill or on all things in front of the 
House?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Further proceedings on this bill have been 
postponed.
  Mr. CONYERS. Regular order, Madam Speaker.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, there is a motion to recommit that is 
under consideration on the floor at this moment. Wouldn't it be 
appropriate for the House to continue to finish the work on this motion 
before further legislative action is postponed? Because there is, in 
fact, a pending question before the House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is operating under section 2 of 
the rule, and will state it: ``During consideration of H.R. 1433 
pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the 
previous question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the 
bill to a time designated by the Speaker.''
  Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, the Chair recognized the gentleman from 
Texas for a motion to recommit. The motion, in fact, has been debated. 
To stop before we complete action on that motion does not seem to be 
covered under the rule, as I understand it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Section 2 provides for further consideration 
to be postponed.
  Mr. CONYERS. Regular order, Madam Speaker.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, as I understand the Chair's ruling, this 
is no different than any other proposal on a bill where the vote could 
be postponed under the rule. That has been, I point out to my 
colleagues, done on numerous occasions.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This postponement was enabled by section 2 
of the rule, which has been stated.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Parliamentary inquiry, Madam Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Section 2 of the rule states that the Chair may 
postpone further consideration of the bill to a time designated by the 
Speaker.
  What time would that be?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is within the discretion of the Chair.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Further parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Can the Chair enlighten the Members of the 
House as to when the Chair might rule as to what time we would be 
voting on this?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. A decision will be forthcoming. The 
gentleman should check with his leadership.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Further inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. The gentleman from California mentioned that 
this was no different than any other rule. Isn't it true that this 
section 2, under the rule, is a new and unique section that has been 
added to this rule?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Authority to postpone consideration is not 
new, but the gentleman is correct that it has not before been used in 
these circumstances.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the Speaker.
  Mr. McHENRY. Parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. McHENRY. Madam Speaker, under the operational rule of the House 
today, it says, the rule specifies that notwithstanding the previous 
question. The previous question has already been ordered on this 
legislation. Therefore, the pertinent rule the Speaker is specifying is 
not operational under this rule; is that not correct?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is not correct.
  Mr. McHENRY. Madam Speaker, additional parliamentary inquiry. Why am 
I incorrect?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will read the rule again:
  ``Section 2. During consideration of H.R. 1433 pursuant to this 
resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the 
Chair may postpone further consideration of the bill to a time 
designated by the Speaker.''
  The Chair was authorized to postpone further consideration 
notwithstanding the fact that the previous question was ordered to 
passage.

                          ____________________