By JOHN KANELIS / johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

Phil Gramm used to speak with pride about all the “pork barrel projects” he brought home to Texas, which he represented in the U.S. Senate from 1985 until 2002

“I’ve brought home so much pork,” the Republican Gramm would boast, “that I have contracted trichinosis.”

The euphemistic term is “earmarks.” Congress banned them in the early 2000s when earmarks became tied to scandal. They might be coming back and Texas might be set to benefit materially from their return, according to the Texas Tribune.

The Tribune reports: There’s no legal definition of earmarks. You know them when you see them. A lawmaker wants a bridge or post office or some other project built in their district. They write a small proposal committing federal funds for the job and try to to inject it into one of Congress’ massive spending bills each year. They shop the idea around to colleagues, and with the right cajoling and horse trading, their small request is granted and that new post office is on the way, perhaps even to be named after the lawmaker who wriggled it through.

I’ll be candid. I am filled with terribly mixed emotions when I consider earmarks. When do earmarks become pork barrel? When is the process necessarily a bad thing?

As the Tribune noted: Before their demise, earmarks shepherded by Texas legislators supported cybersecurity education at the University of Texas at San Antonio, the dredging of the Port of Houston, wind energy studies at Texas Tech University, desalination in El Paso and cancer research at MD Anderson Cancer Center, among other things.

If Congress restores earmarks, will Texas partake? | The Texas Tribune

Those are worthwhile projects, right? Yes. They are. However, earmarks can be scandalized and used for nefarious — even criminal — purposes. The Tribune reports: Back in 2006, the Republican-controlled Congress was mired in scandal. On the House side, prosecutors charged a war hero who claimed to have inspired the fictional movie “Top Gun” — U.S. Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham — with taking bribes in exchange for earmarks, including $2 million, prostitutes and even a French commode. Then we had the infamous “bridge to nowhere” pushed by GOP Sen. Ted Stevens, which received $223 million for a span to an island in Alaska that was home to fewer than 50 people.

We elect our senators and House members to benefit us at home. Earmarks are one way for lawmakers to demonstrate their ability to help the people they represent. They also can be abused.

I will remain on the fence as to whether earmarks should be allowed. They do plenty of good for states and congressional districts. They also provide opportunities for abuse. If they do return, then let’s be sure the congressional watchdogs are alert to any effort to corrupt the system.