On August 1, 2014 there was an usual debate in Congress centering on the remarks of Representative Michele Bachmann.
The debate read like this:
“Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to strike from the Congressional Record the words of the gentlewoman from Minnesota who described placing a handcuff on one hand of the President’s—-
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I object as the request is not timely.
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
Excuse me. May I finish my unanimous consent request? Thank you.
She in one moment described putting one handcuff on one hand of the President’s and a second handcuff on the second hand of the President’s and handcuffing the lawless President of the United States.
Those are words which are not appropriate in the Congressional Record. I ask unanimous consent that they be stricken. Impugning the character and integrity of the President of the United States is a clear violation of the rules of this House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Rhode Island?
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I do object. The request is not timely.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
Mr. CICILLINE. A parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield for a moment.
There is no requirement that a unanimous consent request be timely. The House can consent unanimously to any course of action. I am asking the House to consent unanimously to striking these particular words from the Congressional Record. There is no requirement under the House rules that it be done contemporaneously, that is, of taking down the words of today.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has stated a unanimous consent request, and there has been an objection.
Mr. CICILLINE. And I have heard no objection.
Mr. ROYCE. There is an objection to the unanimous consent request, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. There is an objection. ”
Source: Congressional Record http://thomas.loc.gov/