[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 7075-7076]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, is it not the case that the vote did not overrule the 
Chair? Is it not the case that the Chair's ruling that the words were 
out of order was not challenged, and was it not the case that the 
motion was simply to restore the right of the gentleman from 
Mississippi to speak and in no way overruled the ruling of the Chair?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pastor). The gentleman is correct. The 
motion was to allow the gentleman from Mississippi to proceed in order 
on this day.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. We just had a vote to restore the floor privileges 
for a Member who had his words taken down. Is it not true that the 
Democratic leadership, Speaker Pelosi, made the comments that we were 
going to have a more civil House and that we----
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Point of order, Mr. Speaker. The 
gentleman has not stated a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may state a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Parliamentary inquiry: Is it true that we did not 
pass rules in this House that talked about civility?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The rules that have been adopted address 
order in the House.
  The gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  I am not sure everyone heard you. I would appreciate it, so the vote 
we just voted is clarified, would you please restate the vote and also 
indicate whether or not that was an overruling of the Chair? Would you 
restate it for the full body, please?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. By motion, the gentleman from Mississippi 
was allowed to proceed in order on this day.
  The gentleman from Mississippi.
  Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House 
for 1 minute.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Mississippi?
  Mr. ISSA. I object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  Mr. STEARNS. Parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of the Rules of the 
House, when the words of a Member is taken down and the Speaker rules 
that these words were incorrect and not within the decorum of the House 
and that these words would be stricken, is the normal procedure, 
notwithstanding the motion from Mr. Frank, is the normal procedure that 
the Member is no longer allowed to debate for the full day in the 
House? Is that the procedure? I want to confirm that procedure.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The answer is yes; the presumptive sanction 
is a disability from further recognition on that day; but in this case, 
by motion, the gentleman from Mississippi is allowed to proceed in 
order on this day.
  Mr. STEARNS. I have a follow-up question, Mr. Speaker.
  If that is the normal procedure, when is the last time we have 
allowed someone to speak on the floor after his words were taken down 
and stricken from the Record? Would the Parliamentarian please provide 
it to this Member? When was the last time we allowed someone to 
continue to debate on this floor after his words were stricken from the 
Record?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair cannot place today's proceedings 
in historical context. That is not the role of the Chair.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman 
from Mississippi be recognized for 1 minute out of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Indiana?

[[Page 7076]]

  There was no objection.
  Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you, Mr. Buyer.
  In the course of the debate I encouraged, with words that were a 
little bit too strong, my colleague from Georgia to come visit south 
Mississippi and see the aftermath of Katrina. I used the word 
``decency'' when I should have said ``the courtesy.'' If I have 
offended his decency, then I apologize for that.
  But the offer stands. The gentleman was good enough to admit 
privately that he has not visited south Mississippi since the storm, 
has not seen that the town of Waveland is virtually gone, that Bay 
Saint Louis is virtually gone, that Pass Christian is virtually gone. 
To the point of his amendment: How does a town that is gone come up 
with matching funds to restore itself?
  So I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I hope I have made my point 
to the membership, and I thank the body.

                          ____________________