On the recordJuly 11, 2013
In explaining your answer to the last parliamentary inquiry, you indicated that the problem was that he embellished by introducing himself as chairman of the Hispanic Caucus. The gentleman from New York who just spoke did not do so, but simply articulated three reasons he was opposed to this bill. It seems to me that that is certainly within the contemplation of the unanimous-consent request. If we start parsing that people can only articulate one reason, I would suggest to our friends, the Parliamentarians, and to the Speaker, that that will establish a precedent which will be very difficult and subjective for implementation by the Speaker. I ask the Speaker to perhaps further explain why Mr. Meeks' objection was charged to Mr. McGovern's time. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is drawing the line at a simple declarative statement. Multiple, simple declarative statements constitute debate.
