Mr. Chairman, no, that does not follow. The measure that we had, you and I sat in a conference room; we went through the list with staff discussing specifically each and every earmark. And that earmark was not part of that process. When we got the report that accompanied this bill to the Rules Committee, all of a sudden there was a new earmark that you and I had not gone through. You can talk to staff and those types of things. I was never aware and neither were they that it was an earmark.
Pete Hoekstra: “Mr. Chairman, no, that does not follow. The measure that we had, you and I sat in a conference room; we went through the…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the process of earmarks in relation to a bill during a committee meeting.
Share
More from Pete Hoekstra
I thought the Ontario ad campaign was outrageous, calling it the first time in the U.S.’s 250-year history that a foreign government has tried to influence the outcome of upcoming elections.
If (the referendum) is going to be influenced by governments, it’s going to be influenced by the government of Alberta and by the federal government, and maybe the other provinces, but not by the United States government.
The vote that’s going to happen in October is a decision for the people of Alberta.
Probably the region that can make the most compelling case for supplying more oil to the United States would be Saskatchewan and Alberta.





