In the clearest language he's used yet, Rep. Don Young (R-AK) disclaimed responsibility for changing the language of the Coconut Road earmark after it had cleared both houses of Congress on the House floor today. He also repeated his earlier criticism of the Senate's vote to require a Justice Department investigation, calling it a "slippery, slippery road." You can see his comments here:

All this notwithstanding, Young supported the overall bill, which contained a fix to change the earmark's language back to the way it was before the infamous change. The bill passed easily today.

Young's spokeswoman had earlier called the change a "correction" by staff, but Young was more specific on that point today. Young said that the "enrollment" process, where technical changes are made by the House clerk to tidy up the bill that Congress passed, "is not a process I own or control." He added: "I have never been in an enrollment office." The ambiguity remains, however, of whether anyone on Young's staff urged the change.

And he went on to say that it was nothing remarkable that there had been a change. For instance, he said, there had been an earmark for a Jacksonville in the bill, but that the enrollment clerks had changed the language to specify for which of the six U.S. Jacksonvilles it was intended.

As we explained at length in this post, minor changes are regularly made to bills in the enrollment process. But Young's earmark was unique of the 6,371 earmarks in that underwent such a substantive change. It was originally for the widening of I-75 in Collier and Lee counties in Florida, and it was changed to concern only the Coconut Road interchange in Lee County. So he's being more than a little slippery here.

Don't worry, America! Rep. Don Young (R-AK) will ensure that the blessed integrity of our nation's Constitution is upheld.

Last week, the Senate voted to require the Justice Department to open an investigation into how the language of Young's Coconut Road earmark was modified after it cleared both houses of Congress, but before it was signed by the President. Young, of course, welcomes scrutiny of any and all of his beloved earmarks. But it's the law of the thing that's got him upset:

"What the Senate did was unconstitutional," the Alaska Republican said Wednesday. "No other body can request an investigation on another body."

Now, while there are a host of touchy Constitutional issues surrounding the Senate's measure, this, to my understanding, isn't one of them. Democrats objected to Sen. Tom Coburn's (R-OK) measure to create a bicameral committee because it would have involved one chamber investigating another (that measure failed). And there are legitimate concerns that any DoJ investigation would clash with Congress' Speech or Debate Clause protections. But no one else has put it quite the way Young has put it -- that the Senate's request for an investigation by the DoJ was unconstitutional.

Of course, just to underscore the circularity of all this, the Justice Department is already investigating Young's Coconut Road earmark, along with his ties to Veco and who knows what else. So if the Senate's possibly unconstitutional measure to force the DoJ to investigate Young's unconstitutional earmark fails, the DoJ will investigate it anyway.

Somehow I think that the Constitution will survive all this. As for Don Young...

All that bother today will amount to a whole lot of nothing, says Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington's Executive Director Melanie Sloan:

"Clearly, something went seriously awry before the 2005 highway funding bill was sent to the president. The question now is the best way to find out how and why this occurred. It certainly appears as if Don Young (R-AK) snuck in the earmark in exchange for campaign contributions from Florida developer Daniel Aronoff. Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) is to be commended for insisting that the Senate address this matter. Nevertheless, in sending the matter over to the Department of Justice, the Senate has ignored the Speech or Debate clause, which prevents law enforcement from introducing legislative material (such as an earmark in a bill) as evidence against a lawmaker.

Read more »

So the Senate has voted to require the Justice Department to investigate how Rep. Don Young's (R-AK) earmark came to be changed after the bill passed both houses of Congress. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), who was pushing a competing solution (an eight-member bicameral committee), says that sets "the troubling and bizarre precedent of turning the Attorney General into the de facto Senate and House Parliamentarian."

And indeed, it does seem to be a first. Associate Senate Historian Donald A. Ritchie said that he couldn't think of a prior occasion when the Senate had asked the Department to investigate a member of the House.

And Coburn's solution didn't have a clear precedent either, he said: while the Senate and the House have formed bicameral committees numerous times in the past to investigate scandals involving lawmakers from both houses, he couldn't think of an instance where one house formed a committee to investigate a member solely of another house. "For the most part, most of the time, each house takes care of its own."

This tutorial on Congressional history has been brought to you by Don Young.

So now the Senate has agreed on an amendment that will require the Justice Department to investigate Rep. Don Young's (R-AK) Coconut Road earmark.

But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) speaking earlier today said that she thinks the House ethics committee ought to get on the case. She also objected to Sen. Tom Coburn's (R-OK) solution of a bicameral panel, saying "We have an ethics committee. I don't see why that would be necessary."

Yeah, why would that be necessary?

If only a nonpartisan watchdog had filed an ethics committee complaint back in September, then maybe all this noise and Constitutional debate wouldn't be necessary in the Senate. Oh, wait. Taxpayers for Common Sense did file a complaint. And nothing has happened. Because that's what the House ethics committee is best at.

"A lot of air in the Senate has been wasted today because the ethics committee isn't doing its job," Taxpayers for Common Sense's Keith Ashdown told me. "We'll hear the announcement of the ethics committee investiagation as soon as the Justice Department announces that they're indicting Don Young."

The House ethics committee does indeed have a knack for opening investigations of members who are already under investigation by the Justice Department. It's a neat trick, because after opening the investigation they declare that they can't investigate because it would interfere with the Department's investigation.

As expected, Democrats, with few exceptions, just united to defeat Sen. Tom Coburn's (R-OK) solution of creating a bicameral panel to investigate Rep. Don Young's (R-AK) Coconut Road earmark.

The final vote was 49 for and 43 against. That's far short of the 60 votes needed to pass.

Update: Here's the roll call for that vote.

Sen. Barbara Boxer's (D-CA) amendment just passed by a margin of 63 to 29. Virtually all Senate Democrats supported the measure, helped by a good number of Republicans.

The amendment requires a review by the Department of Justice into the allegations of impropriety regarding Rep. Don Young's (R-AK) Coconut Road earmark and an investigation into whether the change broke the law.

Immediately after the vote, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), who voted against the amendment, called the vote an "amazing precedent" set to invite the "Justice Department to investigate a House rules violation."

The Senate is now moving on to Coburn's solution -- a joint House-Senate investigation. Sen. Boxer declared that such an investigation would "bring the whole bill down" because of Constitutional objections by Democrats in both the House and the Senate.

Update: Here's the roll call for that.

In just a couple minutes, the Senate will hold votes on how Rep. Don Young's (R-AK) extra-Constitutional earmark ought to be investigated.

The two options, both offered as amendments to a highway technical corrections bill, are the ones I laid out yesterday.

Sen. Tom Coburn's (R-OK) preferred solution is an investigation by a joint committee of both House and Senate lawmakers with subpoena power.

Sen. Barbara Boxer's (D-CA) amendment would direct the Justice Department to review the earmark and investigate whether Young's extra-Constitutional earmark broke the law.

Both will need 60 votes in order to pass according to the deal struck between the parties. Why the high vote threshold?

The Democrats have come hard down on Boxer's side of the discussion, saying that Coburn's solution would result in the unconstitutional situation of members of the Senate investigating the House. Speaking on the floor just now, Sen. Boxer said that the House leadership has made it known that they have strong objections to the measure that might prevent the bill from passing.

Meanwhile, the House Republicans have let it be known that they really don't like the idea of asking the Justice Department to investigate.

So we'll see what happens with the voting. The high threshold could very well mean that neither amendment passes.

If neither of these measures pass, Boxer says that she favors sending a strongly worded letter to the Justice Department as a consolation measure.

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.

It's a cause that has united lawmakers from right and left alike. How did Rep. Don Young (R-AK) manage to insert an earmark that benefited a campaign contributor after the bill had cleared both houses of Congress?

Where the two sides differ is in how that investigation should take place.

To review the circumstances of Young's extra-Constitutional wizardry: Young, then the chairman of the House transportation committee, inserted a $10 million earmark to widen I-75 in Florida's Collier and Lee Counties in the 2005 bill. The project was supported by local officials. That was the version passed by Congress. But because of Young's unique position, he was able to make a crucial change: the bill later signed by the President had different language, directing the $10 million to an I-75 interchange at Coconut Road. That project had been opposed by local officials, but aggressively backed by real estate mogul Daniel Aronoff, who'd thrown a $40,000 fundraiser for Young that year.

Back in December, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) began pushing for an investigation of Young's extra-Constitutional wizardry. And his preferred solution is an investigation by a joint committee of both House and Senate lawmakers with subpoena power.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), meanwhile, has offered an amendment that would direct the Justice Department to review the earmark and investigate whether Young's extra-Constitutional earmark broke the law.

Both approaches are likely to come up for a vote on the Senate floor either tonight or tomorrow morning. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) favors Boxer's approach. Why? Well, Jim Manley, his spokesman, called Coburn's approach "blatantly unconstitutional" because it would involve one house investigating another house of Congress. You might call that ironic.

Coburn spokesman John Hart, meanwhile, said that Boxer's amendment might lead to nothing, since Coburn didn't believe that Congress had the power to "tell the Justice Department what to do." But he stressed that Coburn was pleased that everyone agrees that Young's earmark should be investigated.

It's also worth mentioning that the FBI is already reportedly investigating the earmark as a possible bribe.

What is clear is that whatever solution emerges, it's more likely to get results than the House ethics committee.

Back in September, the non-partisan watchdog Taxpayers for Common Sense filed a complaint with the House ethics committtee about the change. But as expected, the infamously inert committee has done nothing.

And what does Don Young think about all this?

Read more »

Rep. Don Young (R-AK) has spent more than one million dollars on criminal defense lawyers. And for some reason, reporters won't stop asking him questions about it.

Are the feds investigating whether Young took bribes from the corrupt executives at Veco (as The Wall Street Journal has reported)? What about his ties to Jack Abramoff? Anything else?

This February, he practically leaped out of his seat at a journo who had the temerity to press for details. "It's not my prerogative to answer to people who have nothing to do with it. That's you," he said and claimed that his constituents weren't bothered with his support of the legal community -- only nosy muckrakers. When the reporter protested that he was a constituent, Young asked if the reporter had voted for him. "No, sir," the reporter replied, and that was that.

Now that Young has officially crossed the million dollar mark, reporters are badgering him again. And yesterday Young struck a different tone:

Young... said he wished he could speak his mind. He can't, he said in a statement released Tuesday, because "both the Department of Justice and my lawyers have asked that I not comment further on the investigation. I MUST honor this request," using capital letters for emphasis.

"Many people have been concerned about my legal fees and I do not take their concerns lightly... I have learned that the legal process is an expensive process, but I have nothing to hide. When it comes to my family and my character, the truth is priceless. That is exactly why I hired good legal counsel, and I have worked fully with the Department of Justice by answering their questions and providing them with anything they have requested."

Despite all the unjust scrutiny, Young has tried to make things right. Last year, his campaign committee tried to reimburse Bill Allen, formerly the CEO of Veco and now a full-time cooperator, for approximately $38,000 that Allen spent putting on Young's big annual pig roast fundraiser every year (see to the right).

Young's chief of staff explained to The Anchorage Daily News that the campaign was simply doing its due diligence and discovered the problem. Their caution might have also had something to do with the fact that a number of state lawmakers had had their offices raided by the FBI as part of the Veco investigation.

In any case, Allen was already cooperating with the feds by the time that Young tried to make amends. And Allen, not surprisingly, did not accept the cash. In its filing with the FEC this week, the campaign does not offer an explanation, only writing "Two checks paid to Bill Allen in the total amount of $37,626.00 in January 2007 for fundraiser costs were not cashed by Mr. Allen. These funds were later disgorged to the US Treasury in January 2008."

You know it's got to hurt Young, such an accomplished earmarker, to be giving perfectly good money up to the government.

Congratulations to Rep. Don Young's (R-AK) lawyers, who, working together, have exceeded one million dollars in billings!

But don't worry: Young's campaign contributors are the ones bearing the burden. Young's spokesperson put the word out on Friday, in anticipation of Young's upcoming quarterly report to the FEC.

Due to $213,000 in legal fees paid out by the campaign in the first quarter of this year, Young's campaign has now paid out more than $1.1 million in fees. Only Rep. Jerry Lewis' (R-CA) campaign has achieved a similar feat.

Unfortunately, Young paid out more in legal fees than he raised in that quarter (just $164,000). Young started up a legal defense fund early this year to help handle his legal costs.

And what are all those lawyers (there are three different firms) doing for their money? Don't ask Young, or:

Young has consistently refused to detail what he might be under investigation for or even who is investigating him. The Wall Street Journal reported last year that Young was under scrutiny for his ties to the mucked-up oil company Veco. Other than that, things have remained unclear. In a press conference with Alaskan journalists earlier this year, Young was more than a little impatient with reporters who pushed him for details.