The SPEAKER pro tempore. It takes unanimous consent to place extraneous material in the RECORD. An objection was heard to such a request; therefore, unanimous consent was not obtained.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, is it not customary as a normal matter of comity in this House to allow all material requested to be placed in the RECORD?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Unanimous consent was sought. It was not obtained because the gentleman from Texas was on his feet and objected; therefore, the material does not get inserted in the RECORD.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. Is the material asked to be inserted covered under the General Leave that was requested at the beginning of the debate by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey)?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The general leave was for extension of remarks and not for insertion of extraneous material.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. There has been no ruling. The Chair merely heard objection.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California is recognized.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, does the rule not state that the objection must be asked for prior to the speaking of the Member? This Member spoke, and the objection was asked for after the party spoke. My understanding is it should have been done ahead of time.

What is the correct rule?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York made a unanimous consent request, which was heard in total. At the conclusion of that request, the Chair queried for objection, and the gentleman from Texas rose and objected. Therefore, unanimous consent was not obtained.

Ms. WATERS. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I think what I observed was she asked unanimous consent. There was no objection. She proceeded to speak. She spoke, and the objection was not timely. It was asked for after she had completed speaking. That is what I saw.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York was yielded for the purpose of a unanimous consent request. At the conclusion of that consent request, objection was made by the gentleman from Texas.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I submit that that was not a timely objection. It was not timely.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. It was a contemporaneous objection; when the Chair queried for objection, the gentleman was on his feet. Therefore, it was timely.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I do not think so. And I would oppose that, and I would support my colleague, who again would ask that we have a vote on the ruling by the Chair.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentlewoman from California appeal the ruling of the Chair that the objection was timely?

Ms. WATERS. Yes, Mr. Speaker. Based on my statement, he is now again appealing the ruling of the Chair based on that it was untimely.

I ask the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) if that is right.

Mr. NADLER. Yes, it is.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the House?

MOTION TO TABLE OFFERED BY MR. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to table the appeal.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Would the gentleman kindly withhold that motion.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw for now the motion to table.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, in light of new information, I withdraw the appeal.