[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 77 (Thursday, May 10, 2007)]
[House]
[Page H4880]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES

  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Is the Chair saying that the mere existence of a 
list is sufficient, even though it includes an earmark where the 
requesting Member failed to notify the ranking minority member of his 
request, as required under clause 17 of rule XXIII?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair cannot render advisory opinions or 
respond on hypothetical premises.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, further parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Is the Chair saying that the mere existence of a 
list is sufficient, even though the list fails to include an earmark 
contained in the bill?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Again, the Chair does not purport to issue 
such an advisory opinion.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, I don't believe this is a hypothetical 
situation, but I want to make further parliamentary inquiry, if I 
could.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Is the Chair saying that the mere existence of a 
list is sufficient, even though it includes an earmark where the 
requesting Member failed to certify he has no financial interest in the 
earmark?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair's response must remain the same.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Finally, one last parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Finally, is the Chair saying that the mere printing 
of a list of earmarks, or a statement that the bill contains no 
earmarks, is sufficient to render the point of order against the bill 
as not recognized by the Chair?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair can affirm that clause 9 of rule 
XXI contemplates that the presence of earmarks and limited tax and 
tariff benefits be disclosed or disclaimed. Complying statements, 
listing such provisions or disclaiming their presence, must appear 
either in the report of a committee or conference committee or in a 
submission to the Congressional Record.
  Paragraph (a) of clause 9 establishes a point of order. Paragraph (c) 
of clause 9 requires that such a point of order be predicated only on 
the absence of a complying statement.
  Clause 9 of rule XXI does not contemplate a question of order 
relating to the content of the statement offered in compliance with the 
rule. Argument concerning the adequacy of a list or the probity of a 
disclaimer is a matter that may be addressed by debate on the merits of 
the measure or by other means collateral to the review of the Chair.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Further parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. So, Mr. Speaker, is it my understanding, from your 
last comments, that even though the rule specifically state that these 
procedures should be followed, and that they were not followed in this 
particular instance, that you are going to rule that the list, even 
though deficient not containing all the earmarks, just the mere fact 
that there was a list presented, no matter how accurate, that that will 
stand?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would not deign to say what the 
gentleman understands, but the Chair's statement speaks for itself.

                          ____________________