« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
1 in 6,371: The Young Earmark Caper
On July 29, 2005, after both houses of Congress had passed a massive transportation bill, someone changed the language of a $10 million authorization for Florida to read just how Rep. Don Young (R-AK) wanted it. Who? How? It's not clear, and Don Young's not talking. But we do know one thing for sure: it was a unique case.
The 800-page, $286.4 billion bill included $24.2 billion for 6,371 special earmarks, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense.
Out of those 6,371 earmarks, only one underwent a substantive change after it passed Congress. How do we know? We checked. Our, rather, our tireless (and by now nearly blind) researchers Will Thomas and Tanvir Vahora checked. Every single one. Lawmakers tucked 6,371 projects into the bill, and sure, there were minor differences between the conference report that passed Congress and the bill that the President signed, such as an extra word here or there, different punctuation, etc. But the only earmark that underwent a substantive change was Young's pet Coconut Road project:
As Keith Ashdown of Taxpayers for Common Sense explained to us, Young had a motive for making the change. Local authorities had signaled that they didn't want to spend the money on the I-75 Coconut Road Interchange and would rather have it for a more general highway widening project. But Young's rainmaker, businessman Daniel Aronoff, wanted the interchange. And so Young made sure that the money was targeted to that project.
The question remains, of course, how this happened.
As we've detailed before, the change must have been made during what's called the "enrollment" process, when technical changes are made by the House clerk to tidy up the bill that Congress passed. The change was only recently discovered, after Lee County officials commissioned a study on the earmark.
Stan Brand, former General Counsel to the House of Representatives, said that such clerks would have had to be involved in the change. And he joined other experts and watchdogs in calling for the incident to be investigated. "It seems to me a matter that the House would want to look at to see if its processes are being manipulated."
Brand couldn't think of another instance where a lawmaker had made such a change to a passed bill. His best comparison was to a 1983 House probe into the corruption of transcripts from investigations into the Environmental Protection Agency. There, members on both sides of the aisle were found to have substantively changed the nature of witnesses' testimony.
"Legislation has to be above reproach for any certainty in the interpretation and the enforcement of our laws," he said. "It's a fairly serious issue, and somebody needs to find out what happened. It goes far beyond some interchange down in Florida."
Will Thomas and Tanvir Vahora contributed research to this post.
Comments (19)
Ed*ard Teller wrote on August 22, 2007 3:52 PM:And meanwhile, Paul and Laura, back in Alaska, they've dedicated the $51 million Ted Stevens Marine Research Institute. Yesterday, in Juneau:
"I think the Ted Stevens Marine Research Institute is an indication to people that Alaska has come of age in the world of fisheries management - that we are now ready to take our place among the best in the world," Mundy said.
U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens, the institute's namesake, said he could not think of a more important facility for Alaska's future.
link: http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/082207/loc_20070822007.shtml
there were fairly big demonstrations at the entrance, but I haven't been able to find any pictures on the web.
SkippyFlipjack wrote on August 22, 2007 5:00 PM:Doesn't this mean that it's not a law? We all learned in civics class that congress discusses something, writes it up, votes on it and boom, it's a law. If congress voted on something, the law is what they voted on. Young's change should just be snipped and the money available to the general highway fund.
aklady wrote on August 22, 2007 5:29 PM:Ed*ard Telller,
is that DeMaster in the photo? Gosh isn't he in a relationship is AK SeaLife center's Science Director?
Alaska's marine science research community is so inbred.
714Day wrote on August 22, 2007 5:42 PM:It's so blatantly ridiculous.
wm wrote on August 22, 2007 5:48 PM:Who was looking until recently, however?
These people are used to details that get lost in plain sight.
Thank you TPM for being there!Please keep it up. So now another republican sercretively sneeking around inserting language that fits to their own personal agenda. Unbelievable and unethical business in our goverments. Hopefully this will be found to be illegal and the culprits ass will be kicked out.
I believe that it was TPM who also brought us the news of another sneeky insert in the revised patriot act regarding the attorney scandal. Today I heard that the president appointed 23 attornies without congressional review. Is this true?
Matt S wrote on August 22, 2007 6:11 PM:Wm
An argument can be made the the whole bill was pocket vetoed. Bush did not sign the bill passed by Congress so the whole bill did not become law.
Satan luvvs Repugs wrote on August 22, 2007 6:21 PM:This calls for investigation, and if Young did fiddle with the bill after passage, it's as clear a cause for ejection from the House as there can be.
Ejection with extreme predjudice, and push him down the front steps, even better.
victoria wrote on August 22, 2007 6:47 PM:*I believe that it was TPM who also brought us the news of another sneeky insert in the revised patriot act regarding the attorney scandal. Today I heard that the president appointed 23 attornies without congressional review. Is this true?*
Yes... I heard that too (today on Air America). I think it was Thom Hartman! 23 out of 93. Don't we need to change the law for those 23 and bring them back for Senate review? I know they changed the law, but when they did that there was no "fix" for those in place, right?
johnnydoughey wrote on August 22, 2007 7:43 PM:How's this: We demand the Congress and Senate pass a law similar to the one I believe New Jersey just passed. If a lawmaker is convicted of legal or ethics charges, he gives up his retirement.
Let's all of us hold our breath until our new, ethics conscious Congress (or any future Congress) brings this up to a vote...
Ha ha ha... democracy... ha ha he he... sure it is... ha ha oink oink..
parrot wrote on August 23, 2007 12:04 AM:Again, will Congress bother to uphold the Constitutional system or not? The Republic is indeed in a spiral...
The Oracle wrote on August 23, 2007 12:07 AM:What did Rep. Don Young think this bill was...Wikipedia??
In fact, Congress should pass a law making it mandatory that all legislation be posted on Wikipedia before being sent to the White House, so that concerned U.S. citizens can make any appropriate (ahem) changes, just as Rep. Young apparently did. Nothing like a little hands-on citizen participation to liven things up, I say. And just like on Ebay and an auction deadline, there could be a Wikipedia cut-off time, which would make the last few seconds especially exciting. Aw, c'mon Congress, it'd be so much fun...although it might crash whatever server Wikipedia is on.
Dr. Wu wrote on August 23, 2007 3:35 AM:Young's rainmaker, businessman Daniel Aronoff, wanted the interchange.
"Wanted" isn't the word. He paid $40,000 in cash bribes to Young in exchange for the $10 million earmark, fair and square--a nice 25000% rate of return at the taxpayers' expense. Every day that Young is not in prison on bribery charges is an affront to the republic.
aklocal wrote on August 23, 2007 3:40 AM:Thanks Will Thomas and Tanvir Vahora. Wow! That sure is hard work. Really, really great hard work.
If you are on Don Young's staff and reading this, please tell our Congressman that a constituant is demanding and explanation of how the appropriation was changed post passage. We expect to hear from you Don, and no bullsh#t. We're going to find out anyway.
Whoever made that change did something un-American, something nasty, something very very dirty. I want the details and I want heads to roll.
Laura and Co., can you give us a clearer picture of the "chain of evidence" in a situation like this? Perhaps you can interview a conference committee clerk who has been involved in exactly this post-passage process and share with us how this might have shaken out?
Thanks again Will and Tanvir. 6,371 thanks, in fact. Take a bow!
nffcnnr wrote on August 23, 2007 10:32 AM:Didn't the honorable Senator from Tennessee Bill Frist do something like this in 2006? Only he changed the bill after dubya signed it into law.
bjobotts wrote on August 23, 2007 4:31 PM:Hell yes, we know what needs to be done but is anybody actually doing it. If this goes by unchallenged then it's an okay card for others to follow suit. Changing where the money goes "after" it's been voted into law is criminal and whoever is responsible should be banned from congress like a thief. Hope TPM stays on top of this one.
Danny L. Newton wrote on August 23, 2007 5:47 PM:It would be interesting to know if this change violated any kind of Metropolitan Planning Process or Rural Planning Organization Process. This system was allegedly set into motion during the Clinton Administration to make transportation priorities more responsive to local opinion, even if it was uninformed opinion. Anyway, it would also be interesting to see if this interchange has a FHWA approval or a waiver from the Secretary of Transportation. Interchanges that are too close together are problematic and both the Florida DOT and the FHWA have criteria to prevent making bad global decisions on interchanges but they sound like gobbledygook to the chamber of commerce types who are looking at economic development motives to justify an interchange. I doubt that the Secretary of Transportation would tell congress we are not going to approve your pet interchange. We have several situations here in Tennessee that involve the Rural Planning Organization and the Tennessee Department of Transportation differing on priorities. Sometimes safety is traded for economic development motives, but few people realize this. They see the dollar cost but they never get the butcher's bill.
Cathy Harris wrote on August 23, 2007 7:28 PM:The Coconut Road/I-75 exchange has been on the local MPO planning books for 26 years with no funding. The ROW is bought up. The kicker is that the exchange is only for the WEST SIDE of I-75. Don's rainmaker's property is on the EAST SIDE, where no plan or ROW has been planned. Does anybody get this point?
SeeDee wrote on August 23, 2007 9:56 PM:If you are THE Cathy Harris, who could believe a single word you would utter or write? If, as it appears, you are saying that an 'interchange' would benefit only one side of the Interstate hwy, that is even more un-believable.
Cathy Harris wrote on August 26, 2007 11:07 AM:Sorry, that was Katherine Harris, a Republican. I am a Democrat. I suggest you do some research on the 26 year history of the I75/Coconut Road exchange, which clearly shows only a WEST SIDE development, with no plans for the EAST SIDE, where Mr. Aranoff's property is located. A google earth map look at the intersection shows the "sideways martini glass" of the bought up ROW on the WEST SIDE only. You might also want to research The Brooks subdivision and local county Commissioner Ray Judah as the NIMBYs in this stupidity.