On the recordJuly 11, 2013
The point of order is that, in fact, consistent with your rulings today, that the gentleman's unanimous consent request was not any different, in substance or in length, than the unanimous consent requests that have been made on a number of occasions, and time was not charged. That is inconsistent. It is a subjective judgment, and I appeal the ruling of the Chair. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule. The decision on how and when a Member will be charged in debate is a matter confined to the discretion of the Chair. However, the question of whether the form of a unanimous consent request is in order under the rules is a proper subject for a ruling from the Chair. In the opinion of the Chair, it is not in order to embellish a unanimous consent request with debate. Remarks in the form of debate are charged to the Member yielding. The request by the gentleman from Louisiana contained remarks in the nature of debate. The point of order is overruled.
