[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 42 (Wednesday, March 12, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H1544-H1545]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES

  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. 
Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Please state your inquiry.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Is it true that the rule that 
was the subject of the motion of the gentleman from Ohio with respect 
to not holding a vote open for the purpose of changing votes was 
adopted by this Congress at the beginning of this Congress?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is correct.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, further 
parliamentary inquiry. Is it true that that rule was, in fact, a 
separate title and voted separately by this House by a vote of 430-0?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is not currently aware of the 
exact vote on that.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, further 
parliamentary inquiry. Consistent with the rulings of the Chair last 
night, is it true that the only enforcement mechanism of that rule 
adopted by this House is a privileged resolution such as offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is correct.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Further parliamentary inquiry, 
Mr. Speaker. If such a privileged resolution is tabled, as was just 
done by this body, is it true that there is no alternative enforcement 
mechanism?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The minority leader's resolution, House 
Resolution 1039, was held to present a question of privilege and was 
considered as such. The will of the House was that it be laid on the 
table.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Further parliamentary inquiry, 
Mr. Speaker. Is it available to other Members of this House who feel 
aggrieved by the vote last night to bring a privileged resolution 
similar to that brought by the gentleman from Ohio?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Yes, it is.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Is it true, Mr. Speaker, that if 
individual Members brought such motion seriatim that that would not be 
considered dilatory but, rather, within the authority of each Member of 
this House as a separate and individual Member of this House?

[[Page H1545]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair cannot render such an advisory 
opinion.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, further 
parliamentary inquiry. Is the enforcement mechanism referred to 
previously, exercised by the gentleman from Ohio, also available to 
other individual Members of this House?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Rule IX may be invoked by any Member of the 
House.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Is it correct that the motion just brought by the 
gentleman from Ohio was brought pursuant to rule IX and was on a 
question of the privileges of the House?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is correct.
  Mr. SHADEGG. And is it correct that that motion was then tabled and 
that was the action the House just took?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The minority leader's resolution (H. Res. 
1039) was held to present a question of privilege and was considered as 
such. The will of the House was that it be laid on the table.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Further parliamentary inquiry. If it had not been 
tabled, then it would have been debatable for 1 hour, is that correct?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will not answer a hypothetical 
question. The majority leader's resolution was held to present a 
question of privilege and was considered as such. The will of the House 
was that it be laid on the table.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Is it not true that earlier this year there have been 
questions of the privileges of the House where they have not been 
tabled and they have been debated for an hour?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair cannot serve as historian for the 
House, but the gentleman is correct that a question of privilege could 
be considered by the House.
  Mr. SHADEGG. And could be debated for an hour?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. And could be debated.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Is it not true that in the last Congress, the then 
minority leader and the now Speaker raised a similar question of the 
privileges of the House pursuant to rule IX after a vote was held open 
and that on that question of privileges of the House, in fact, the 
majority, the then majority, now minority, allowed a debate of an hour 
and that the conduct of the House in holding a vote open to change the 
result of the vote was debated for an hour?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is not the function of the Chair to 
render historical perspectives. The Member will have to look to the 
Record for that.
  Mr. SHADEGG. I'm sorry. The gentleman is correct?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is not prepared to render 
historical perspectives. The Member will have to look at the Record for 
that answer.
  Mr. SHADEGG. So the effect of immediately tabling the question of 
privileges raised by the gentleman from Ohio was to deny the minority 
the ability to debate that issue for an hour as was done when the same 
thing happened last Congress, is that correct?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is a summary, adverse disposition.
  Mr. SHADEGG. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Please state your inquiry.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, is it not true that the last vote was 
called at 10:52?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is not prepared to give exact 
figures. The gentleman can look at the Record for that.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Further parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Please state your inquiry.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Is it not true that the vote was closed at 11:22, 
which is approximately 30 minutes?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is not prepared to render an 
historical perspective. The gentleman can look to the Record for that.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Further parliamentary inquiry. According to the 
Democrats' election manifesto, floor votes should be completed within 
15 minutes with a customary 2-minute extension to accommodate Members' 
ability to reach the House Chamber to cast a vote. No vote shall be 
held open in order to manipulate the outcome.
  Was that the rule that we passed on January 5, 2007?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is not appropriate for the Chair to 
render an opinion on a document of the nature cited by the Member.

                          ____________________