On the recordJuly 11, 2013
There was one declarative sentence. It had two commas in it. If we're going to parse this to that extent, I suggest to the Speaker and, frankly, to those who are advising the Speaker, that we're going down a road which is very dangerous. Clearly, if there was an extended time, one could understand that. But adding two very short parenthetical phrases is, I think, Mr. Speaker, inconsistent with your previous rulings as to when you would not charge the time against Mr. McGovern. Again, Mr. Speaker, I understood that when Mr. Hinojosa introduced himself as representing all of the Hispanic Caucus, when he objected to the underlying bill, that that might be perceived as a greater explanation than the Speaker would think warranted. But Mr. Meeks' statement, following that immediately, was a simple declarative statement with two parenthetical phrases, not long in nature, explaining why he was objecting. It seems to me that's consistent with the rules and the position of the House. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will continue to evaluate each individual declarative statement and make the judgment with regards to embellishment according to the previously announced standard. Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time has been charged against us for these unanimous consent requests thus far? The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has been charged 2 minutes total. Parliamentary Inquiry Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.…





