I am calling it earmarking. America calls it pork. This bill, Mr. Chairman, has in it for the first time an established way for the Congress to simply authorize renovation and construction of new facilities, and do it in a way that we do not earmark them, that we no longer will do that. We cannot have it both ways. We cannot be against pork and then be against a process which the gentleman from California has put in this bill, and the gentleman from Florida would take out, a process which just establishes an institutional way to get on with the business of upgrading existing education facilities and building new ones. If we want to continue to force Members to come to the floor and earmark projects, which is the wrong way to do it, then vote yes on the gentleman's amendment.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the issue of earmarking in appropriation bills during a House debate.
Share
More from John Williams
this technical corrections bill contains language which clarifies the original intent of Congress when we enacted Public Law 102-374, the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reserved Water Rights Settlement Act of 1991. This act was passed to finally…
this amendment would conform the Montana water rights language in the bill to the language that this body passed in the Colorado wilderness bill. The amendment changes neither the meaning nor the intent of the water rights section at all…
I thank the Committee on Rules, the Committee on Natural Resources, the Committee on Agriculture, and the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries for bringing this bill before us today. The Montana wilderness bill has been under…
I want to do nothing with my amendment, nor do I do a single thing with my amendment, to discourage voluntary constitutional prayer in school. In fact my amendment says: No funds authorized to be appropriated under this act may be used by…





