Mr. Speaker, the majority frequently congratulates itself for adopting a policy ``banning'' earmarks. Republican leadership often points to the earmark ban as an important accomplishment in improving the legislative process. It should be noted, for the record, the provision requiring the disclosure of earmarks was inserted into the rules of the House during the 110th Congress, under a Democratic majority. The American people might be surprised to learn that, despite claims of strict opposition to earmarks, the majority is bringing a proposed rule to the House floor that would not only allow an earmark in the underlying bill, but even waives the basic requirement that such an earmark be disclosed. Clause 9 of rule XXI of the rules of the House specifically states that it shall not be in order to consider a rule that waives the requirement to disclose earmarks, and yet the rule the majority is seeking to call up specifically states, ``All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived.'' And the question of whether the underlying bill, H.R. 2087, contains an earmark is critical. If enacted, the bill would transfer full ownership of Federal land to a county in Virginia. All parties agree the land has an appraised value of $815,000, but the bill would transfer this Federal land to the county for free. The county is in the congressional district represented by the sponsor of the legislation. This is not county land; this is Federal land.…
On the recordMarch 20, 2012
Share & report
More from Raúl Grijalva
Feb 14, 2024
USET SPF supports the efforts of Tribal Nations to exercise our sovereignty and self-determination to create viable and sustainable economic opportunities and job creation for our communities.
Nov 29, 2023
Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, it is interesting to hear my Republican counterparts wax eloquently about their concerns for our national parks during this debate. They didn't say a word about the…
Jan 30, 2024
The 1872 Mining Law is an outdated law that has failed to protect communities like mine.
Jan 30, 2024
You are hearing that correctly. Any American, or notably, any American subsidiary of a foreign company could have the exclusive rights to our public lands for about $10 per acre per year.





