I reserve a point of order, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I rise to a point of order. Madam Speaker, I make a point of order that the consideration of this resolution is in violation of the House…
I reserve a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker, I rise to a point of order.
Madam Speaker, I make a point of order that the consideration of this resolution is in violation of the House rules that we just passed in which a new section was created to rule XXI that required at least 3 days' notice to consider legislation, that it be posted on the Internet and we have a chance to review it. It is particularly important in this case since we're dealing with a constitutional issue, one that is without precedent, and I insist on the point of order.
Madam Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
Am I to understand that under the rules that were just passed, they are already exempting this resolution, which is of a question of the interpretation of the Constitution of the United States, that it is already being waived, that that new rule requiring 3 days is already being waived?
Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thought that the chairman was going to say that he was going to be brief. Well, he had no choice with this rule. It's a pretty short one.
I just want to say in the brief 2 minutes that we have here that this is a pretty important issue that we are faced with. And I should say just at the outset that I have the greatest respect for my friend, Mr. Sessions. I consider him to be a friend. I hope to get to know Mr. Fitzpatrick as well and to call him a friend as well. But what we are dealing with today is perhaps the most basic test that we have of whether we're going to take legislation seriously.
To the great credit of the maker of this resolution, which we just got, it stipulates right in the first couple of sections, we violated the Constitution on our very first day. The constitutional requirement for oath was violated. And I give you great credit for recognizing that in the resolution.
Now you do say that it created nullities, which is, frankly, a way of saying we operated outside this document on the same day we were reading it. When Mr. Sessions and Mr. Fitzpatrick stood up in front of a television set and held their right hand up--not unlike about 2,000 of my constituents, I suspect--they were violating a very important part of these proceedings, and yet we have a grand total of 2 minutes on each side, Mr. Dreier, and to my colleagues, in which to debate how to fix that infirmity.
Mr. Sessions presided over the Rules Committee during a large portion in which he was not even a duly sworn Member of the United States Congress. Yet we are doing nothing to go back and see would that participation influence proceedings at all.
I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution, not because Mr. Fitzpatrick and Mr. Sessions are not Members of Congress, they clearly are and I congratulate them, but because for the first time in American history, the first time in the history of this body, we are going to pass a fix of a constitutional infirmity with--wait for it--4 minutes of debate when we didn't have the bill until just now. I strongly urge my colleagues to think about the precedent this sets.
I ask the consent of the chairman for an additional 1 minute so we can have an understanding.
The gentleman may yield to a unanimous consent request.
Only does Mr. Dreier have the ability to accede to a unanimous consent request.
Parliamentary inquiry, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker, under the rules of the House, are the Members of Congress who are not duly sworn entitled to be paid for the days of service in which they were here and were not sworn in?
Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
