Despite approval by the U.S. House of Representatives at the end of June, the Federal Government has yet to write a check to the Abraham Lincoln National Airport Commission (ALNAC) for $231,000.

Before the ALNAC check is written, the spending bill, to which it is attached, must be approved by the Senate and signed into law by the President.

"That may be the biggest hurdle," says Andy Fuller, a spokesman for Congressman Jerry Weller, R-11.

Fuller said the President has said he will veto most of the congressional earmarks.

The funding request (earmark) by U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr., D-02 was attached by amendment to the Financial Services Appropriation bill, one of several appropriation bills that carry earmarks.

The bill and the majority of its earmarks were approved.

Jackson’s particular amendment was approved in spite of a vigorous effort, by John Campbell, R-CA to kill it. He sponsored an amendment specifically to ban Jackson’s earmark.

Campbell was incensed that funding from "Minority and Small Business Development and Procurement Opportunities," was proposed for an airport that didn’t exist.

Campbell was quick to point out that the funding for ALNAC, would go to its Executive Director Rick Bryant, who is also a Jackson staff member.

While Jackson pleaded his case on the U.S. floor he defended his project and his earmark. While Jackson tried to sell the benefits of an airport, he said, "Ford Heights, one of the poorest suburbs in the country abuts the airport."

In reality, the unapproved airport is more than 15 miles or approximately 22 minutes from Ford Heights. It is outside Jackson’s district.

Area locals certainly know what Jackson said isn’t true. Jackson knows it isn’t true. But, the other House members who voted to allow his earmark for an airport that doesn’t exist, apparently didn’t know.

Campbell’s amendment failed 107 to 318, largely along party lines, with Democrats favoring the earmarks and Republicans opposing them.

Republicans only oppose earmarks that are proposed by Democrats and vice-versa.

"Earmarks in general - when they are from another congressman - they are pork," Weller’s spokesman said candidly.

But, he reiterated the same opinion of most congressman of either party when he said," Getting a return on federal dollars in your home district where you can see them is important.

"Congressman Weller has been proud of how he has helped his district. There have been a lot of valuable, worthwhile projects."

Democratic Leader Rahm Emanuel, D-05 made a similar statement in an op-ed piece recently in the New York Times.

According to a fact sheet by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, there were 165 earmarks in the General Finance and Appropriation bill, with 148 requested by lawmakers totaling $34 million.

She added that 17 earmarks were added by President Bush to equal $947 million.

The ALNAC funds are just one small line item in one spending bill.

"A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon it adds up to real money." said the late former Congressman Everett Dirksen.

While an "earmark" is loosely defined as a request for a specific amount of money to a particular organization or project in a congressman’s home state or district, earmarks are under increasing debate in the congress, the media, and government watchdog groups.

The Office of Management and Budget refers to earmarks as "a subset of unrequested funding, though the difference between earmarks and unrequested funding is programmatic control or lack thereof in the allocation process."

Wikipedia, the Internet encyclopedia put it more simply, calling earmarks, "pork barrel spending."

Rich Lowry of the National Review Magazine called earmarks "instruments of perversion."

Still other government watchdogs refer to earmarks as "legalized bribery."

Earmarks earned notoriety a few years ago when Congress passed legislation authorizing spending for the nationally embarrassing "Bridge to Nowhere," which earned Rep. Don Young, R-AK the "Golden Fleece Award" in 2003.

Young, the Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee secured $190-million, for a one-mile bridge to connect Ketchikan, Alaska to a sparsely populated island.

The bridge was meant to replace ferryboats which many believed adequately handled passenger traffic between the islands. The funding was said to be beneficial to the local economy and promote tourism.

But, according to the Taxpayers for Common Sense who gave the award, "The real motive behind this boondoggle is to pave the way for well-connected timber interests to clear the island of hundreds of millions of dollars worth of old-growth forests."

In 2005, Young secured a total of $1 billion for Alaska in the transportation bill, including another $231 million for the Gravina Island "bridge to nowhere."

The media attention, in the year of Katrina, caused Young to release the obligation for his bridge projects, although Alaska still received the money.

Earmarks are especially a hot topic this year, and with a special zeal since the Democratically-controlled Congress promised reform.

On July 31, both houses approved the Ethics Reform bill, officially called the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007, which awaits a signature by President Bush.

Fuller explained that Weller voted for the legislation in the House version. He said as far as disclosing earmarks, Weller is in favor of disclosing them once they pass out of committee.

They should have the requestor’s name attached, should be available for debate, and subject to an up and down vote.

"By shining a light on those things, you will weed out bad earmarks on the House floor.

"More importantly, a member will know if he has to try to defend a frivolous project," Fuller said.

The July 31 conference bill, which compromised the senate and house versions of the ethics legislation, waters down what was actually voted for. It guts some key provisions in the bill, according to Citizens Against Government Waste.

Initially, congressional earmarks were to be disclosed publicly in advance, but the watchdog group says, that no longer exists. It required Congress to establish a database, but the latest version requires a database "if practicable."

Personal self-interest was prohibited in the original deal, but it is feared that the latest version no longer offers that protection.

"Taxpayers need to sit up and pay attention to this abuse of their money," the group said. "This is a direct attack on their right to know how tax dollars are being spent and misspent.