Barney Frank

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. But my parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker, is how can a Member make a technical correction to things they never said yet? If we are taking this request, it is Members who have not said anything yet, and it would let them put something into the Record as if they said something, and under the new rules all they can do, it seems to me, is to extend. I would hope this is not allowing someone to say something they already said, and I just do not want Members to have the wrong impression.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I gather revolutions would be confusing even to those who are trying to promulgate them so I appreciate that.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I am all for this. I was not aware that there were many meetings that were not open. Most of the Members I know generally try to get the press to come to their meetings rather than keep them away, but I think it is important that we do this because we not only govern ourselves, we set an example, and I think it is important for us to pass this by a big vote and set an example of openness. Now my friend referred to GOPAC, and he should not have, apparently under the rules, talked about the substance. But what is important is the example we will set. There are political organizations controlled by Members of this House that are not open. What better way to encourage them to do the right thing? What better way to tell the people of GOPAC that they should be open than for us to follow that same rule? So, let us set the example, and let GOPAC profit by our example, and let those who are so worried that we would even discuss it on the floor of the House----

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I have a unanimous-consent request. What happened to my unanimous-consent request?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, the gentleman makes a good point about debate. Would the gentleman agree to unanimous consent for about 20 minutes to debate this? Then we can discuss it. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 20 minutes.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry, and I think Members should be have been here for a while. As I understand it, rising and asking for unanimous consent to revise and extend your remarks and saying you are in opposition, gives you the right to be in the Record to say only that and nothing further, except in a typeface that indicates you were not speaking. Is that correct?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Well, further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, the House just adopted a rule sponsored by the Republican Party which says that the Congressional Record will from hereon be a substantially verbatim transcript, so when the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] asks unanimous consent to revise and extend, I do not know what he could revise. As I understand the rule, it says one can make punctuation and grammatical corrections, so are we adding semicolons? I mean what will appear in the Record as a result of that request because we have a new rule now? I would like to know what would appear in the Record.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.