« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Today's Must Read
Relax, defenders of the Constitution! They were only fixing a mistake.
Since last August, we've been trying to figure out how Rep. Don Young (R-AK) managed to change the language in a bill after it cleared both houses of Congress. Now we've finally got a little bit of clarity -- Young's staff has finally fessed up to making the change. What remains unclear, however, is whether Young told them to do it.
It was no mystery that Young himself was responsible for the earmark, which provided $10 million to build an I-75 interchange at Coconut Road in Lee County, Florida. Local officials had sought money for a more general project to widen the highway, but real estate developer Daniel Aronoff knew the way to get things done. He held a $40,000 fundraiser for Young in Florida.
Why Young? He was the chairman of the House transportation committee back in 2005 and so the man to go to for an earmark that hadn't managed the support of local officials or lawmakers. It didn't really matter that Florida was about as far from Alaska in the United States that you can get.
So while it's been no mystery that Young was responsible for the earmark, just how he managed to buck the constitutional process for lawmaking hasn't been clear. Back in August, we plowed into the 800-page 2005 bill to see whether there had been any other substantial changes. We found that out of approximately 6,370 earmarks, Young's had been the only to undergo such a change.
But Young refused to discuss it. Taxpayers for Common Sense filed a complaint with the House ethics committee, and still he remained mum.
Finally, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) was successful in pushing for an investigation of the earmark. The Senate is likely to vote today and pass a measure by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) that will refer the matter to the Justice Department for investigation.
And today, after debate raged for hours in the Senate on the best way to investigate Don Young, he's finally fessing up - sort of.
Young himself didn't make the change, his staff tells The Washington Post:
Young's staff acknowledged yesterday that aides "corrected" the earmark just before it went to the White House for President Bush's signature, specifying that the money would go to a proposed highway interchange project on Interstate 75 near Naples, Fla. Young says the project was entirely worthy of an earmark and he welcomes any inquiry, a spokeswoman said....Young's office accepted responsibility yesterday for the change, insisting that campaign contributions were not the motive. Rather, presentations made by Florida Gulf Coast University officials and the developers proved the case for the project, aides said.
[Meredith] Kenny, Young's spokeswoman, said the lawmaker always intended for the earmark to designate money to the interchange project, not generic highway improvements. So committee aides altered the bill to reflect that after the House and Senate had approved it.
"There was an error in the bill and so it was corrected," she said.
Now, in our pass through the earmark-laden transportation bill, we did find that plenty of "errors" in the bill had indeed been corrected -- by which I mean misplaced commas, typos, etc. But none of those "corrections" changed the projects themselves.
And of course this statement doesn't answer the big question: whether one of Young's staffers might have made such a change to the bill without asking the boss. Because (hopefully) it's not every day at the office that a staffer changes the language of legislation after it passes Congress.
Comments (23)
Just a misunderstanding. Just a mistake. Just like the NRCC ad that somehow was produced by Freedom's Watch. So many misunderstandings...
April 17, 2008 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hold on -- HOW THE FUCK DOES THIS HAPPEN? I don't mean that in a philosophical sense, as in how the fuck could anyone have the cojones or the chutzpah or the sheer dishonesty to do it. That's obvious. I mean, technically -- can some guy just walk into the Congressional printing office and tell the printer to change the wording of the bill because he's ... well, some guy? What sort of half-assed train-wreck-waiting-to-happen system is in place there????
April 17, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
when Congress passes legislation, CONGRESS DOES NOT MAKE MISTAKES
these staffers DID NOT fix a mistake
they participated in a conspiracy to defraud the People Of The United States
and "staffers" have NO CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS here
April 17, 2008 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Never get involved with anything that sounds catchy. If there's a potential for a scandal, it'll stick. Coconut Road. C'mon. The whole thing would have been overlooked if it were 11th Street.
April 17, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
A $10 million fraud in the private sector would most likely put someone away for a long long time.
The important people, though, do not commit fraud, they just make errors in judgement... and the folks who we vote into those offices to protect and serve us will never treat their own as common criminals.
I am sooo discouraged that folks actually running for the top office of our country can misstate, misinform, have errors in judgement, but cannot be accused of lying. I hope we do not expect them to do any better at telling us truth than Bush's administration has when they are elected.
'We the People" would apparently prefer folks who will lie to us to get THEIR desires met than those who actually believe it is an honor and priveledge to lead this country as our ancestors (and many of the living) believe.
Just discusting... IMHO
April 17, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is a pattern of this staffer slight of hand.
Don't lose sight of the fact that it was also a Congressional staffer (Brett Tollman) who "slipped in" a provision to a Conference Report that ended up allowing Alberto Gonzales to appoint US Attorneys at his discretion, without Senate approval. Arlen Spector never adequately addressed this. And Tollman went on to be (appointed) US Attorney for Utah, for his troubles.
No wonder Congressional staffers don't want to have their publicly available information moved online (and out of a dusty office in the Capitol basement!):
http://www.legistorm.com/blog/hysteria-over-personal-financial-disclosures.html
April 17, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
How can this not be criminal behavior? Someone (and I'd be happy for it to be Young) should serve prison time for this.
April 17, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
agreed,,he should go away for a long time
May 3, 2008 9:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
It seems that someone needs to remind the members of Congress that the staffers work for the officeholder, and not the other way around. And the officeholders and staffers need to be taught that staffers don't make the changes in bills, no matter whether the officeholder directs them to do it or not. The staffers may get the work done in Washington -- I get that -- but they don't make the decisions.
The way to keep this from happening is to make it a felony to do something like this. Hang a felony conviction on one of these folks' record, and there goes the lobbying, the political career and perhaps the law school entry. Hell, if they're a lawyer, disbar them. Make them stop doing this, because none of them would do so unless they were getting paid at some stage of the proceedings.
What a cesspool.
April 17, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think this matters. Young's aides acted as agents to Young and admittedly changed the bill before it went to the President for signature. They even admitted that it was done to follow Young's intent.
Again, Young's spokeswoman acted on the behest of Young. Clearly Young directed the change to insure the funding of the Coconut Road project. That's one problem. The second problem would be if funding this project was quid pro quo. And the more Young's aides talk about this, the easier the quid pro quo part will be to prove.
April 17, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, actually, it sets up an interesting legal question for Young and his staffer, and they might answer differently because their interests might be . . . ummm . . . rapidly diverging.
If Young directed the staffer Young is in deep doo doo, though of course, he has the immunity, he still has to take the political consequences. He doesn't strike me as someone who wants to do that.
If the staffer did it on her own (even knowing that her boss might have expected her to do it in advance of passage), I would say that she was acting outside the scope of her authority.
Still, I doubt if criminal prosecution is in the offing for the staffer, mostly because it does not appear that her actions were taken for her own personal financial gain. This is usually a big distinction when you are trying to argue that someone committed fraud. Remember the idiotic prosecution of Georgia Thompson -- that was a key issue -- that the prosecutor could not show that she had anything personally to gain from doing what she did. This is much worse because it clearly is illegal and improper, but still . . . firing her should suffice.
April 17, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
ummm... a congressional staffer changes legislation passed by Congress before it is signed by the President???
Sounds like Treason to me. It was an action to negate the voting on the bill. Well, maybe not treason, but it sure should be very illegal.
If Congress didn't vote on it, then why is it law? How can any portion of that bill be considered law? The bill that passed was not the document that was signed. The bill that passed was never sent to the President. The President did not sign the bill that passed.
Why is Young still holding his seat in the Senate?
April 17, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
The staffer can't be forced to testify to the Senate. This is clearly a case of Senatorial Privilege.
The staffer was advising the Senator and forcing the staffer to reveal conversations with and actions for the Senator then all staffers would be reticent to speak with and act for their senators or representatives.
If this continued attack on the sanctity of Senatorial Privilege (R) continues then the Senate can no longer support the President.
However even if the Senator in question votes repeatedly to immunize the telecoms and the President, Senatorial Privilege (D) remains lacking any sanctity.
April 17, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jim, got any actual precedents to back that up? It's not at all unlikely that Young (who is not a Senator) will be more than happy to throw the staffer under the bus for going above her paygrade and doing this "all on her own." Hard for the congressman to claim privilege if that's his defense for why he shouldn't be dinged for this.
April 17, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ehh, I think Jim was using sarcasm to highlight the numerous refusals of the sitting President's staff to comply with requests for information, subpoena, etc.
April 18, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
good observation there pv2k.This handling by a staffer should be dealt with harshly. I doubt they would make such changes on own though. If a lobbyist spends time and money paid by a client to get your project funded, only to have something changed by a staffer? It defeats the purpose and therefore doesn't pass the smell test.
It looks bad on Young because he's from Alaska and the money was for Florida.
Thanks to Josh and his leadership on this exposing graft in government. Remember how Young teased the reporter that he would bite back when he was first asked about this? The bite of a paper tiger.heh
Finally the truth comes out, if it was such a mistake, why did it take this long to fess up?
April 17, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
You just can't get good help.
April 17, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
So if a Florida Real Estate tycoon can get $10Megabux for a $40kilobux fund raiser, How much can I buy $1Megabux for? I would gladly pay any Congressperson $4Kbux for a cool $1Mega ... Just reply to me here.
I look forward to talking to you corrupt worthless scum ... err um ... your Majesties ...
April 17, 2008 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here in Wisconsin the business lobby just paid $3 million in exchange for a $320 million writeoff for its members, when they bought the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Not a bad return at all.
April 17, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look at history:
The Democrats are voted into control for 40 years. Then the next generation of history-ignorant young voters fall for the "libertarian" Republican't [tell the truth] pie-in-the-sky, and politics of character assassination and vote them into control.
After about ten years the cumulative evidence is such that it finally dawns on them that "voluntarism" on the part of the powerful is the alternative to rule of law and enforcement thereof. Then Democrats are voted back into control for another 40 years.
We've seen this same thing happen again and again since the Republican'ts were yet again voted into control: changing the language of bills after they have been enacted; requiring final vote on a 1,500 page bill 5 minutes after it is submitted for the first time.
Those who gain by such -- a small minority of the lawless -- support and defend such practices as "cool" and the like. And whine when it doesn't happen. And boast of being and support "Libertarians" who promise more of the same.
Regulation was not implemented before there was gov't; it was implemented as result of long experience taught that it was needed. The human race has never been able to accomplish its aims by leaving everything to "voluntarism" -- the lie of "free [e.g., lawless] markets" -- only a small minority of which would ever volunteer. All the others take advantage of whatever is volunteered, without contributing one drop of sweat or one red cent.
So we find ourselves yet again being outvoted by greedy fools and governed by a criminal enterprise -- exactly as they didn't realize they were demanding.
April 17, 2008 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rep. Young’s office has insisted the staffer made only a minor, technical change in rewriting a highway bill." --quoted
hey they think the taxpayer is STOOPID, NOT!
minor? just a 10 million dollars technical change, HA!
April 18, 2008 12:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you TPMmuckraker, Josh Marshall, Paul Keil, and Laura McGann for exposing this so well. Thanks also to your interns, Will Thomas and Tanvir Vahora who checked all the thousands of earmarks in the highway bill. Right on!
April 18, 2008 5:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
With reference to a law that was not actually voted on, there have been a couple of similar cases that have made their way to the Supreme Court. The ruling has always been that the signatures of the presiding officers of the house and the senate are controlling, and that the court does not look further.
April 18, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink