« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Report: Young's Secret Earmark Edit Not Proper Procedure
Maybe we'll get to the bottom of this after all? Rep. Don Young's (R-AK) post-vote Coconut Road earmark edit piqued the interest of someone in Congress.
The Hill reports that an anonymous member requested that the non-partisan Congressional Research Service prepare a memo on the process for changing language in a bill after it's been passed by the House and Senate.
In the 2005 highway bill, when Young chaired the transportation committee, a $10 million earmark allocated for an interstate widening project was mysteriously rewritten for a more specific project, after both chambers approved the bill. Young's was the only earmark out of more than 6,000 to undergo such a change. Not surprisingly, the analysis concludes that Young's secret tweak wasn't by the book. It remains unclear precisely who made the change.
As The Hill, which obtained a copy of the memo, reports, there's an official process for altering the language of an already-passed measure -- a process that would require Congress' consent. Of course, that's not what happened.
And what can be now that we are two years past the change?
“If Congress does not address the problem with a subsequent new enactment, the constitutionality of the measure may be challenged in federal court,” states the memo. ... According to the CRS memo, courts can diverge from the [relavent] 1892 decision if they believe the “constitutional requirements for enactment were not fulfilled.” In those cases, “the court could invalidate the entire text or alternatively, strike down only the portion of the law that is alleged to have been incorrectly or improperly enrolled.”
The non-partisan watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense has already filed a request for an investigation with the House ethics committee and Public Citizen told The Hill it may file a lawsuit if the ethics committee doesn't act.
Comments (14)
Ed*ard Teller wrote on October 16, 2007 10:42 AM:During the FEC reporting period ending September 30, Young took in about $645,000, but spent around $1,000,000 - spending $185,000 on legal expenses between July and the end of September. At the rate his campaign chest is spending, he goes broke around the middle of July, 2008.
footsore wrote on October 16, 2007 12:24 PM:Watch out the Weasel could make a come back. Five hundred thousand is easy money for this gold digger to find in the corrupt river of politics.
eric wrote on October 16, 2007 12:38 PM:footsore
It takes an investigation by the Congressional Research Service to determine if this is unconstitutional?
Of COURSE it's unconstitutional. Have we really forgotten our grade school civics?
On a related note, I got arrested the other day when I crossed out the name of the payee on a check and changed it to my name. I thought I was just making the payee more *specific*, but the bank didn't agree. Something about fraud or something.
chris wrote on October 16, 2007 2:15 PM:I'd like to know more about that 1892 decision. Seems if they had to go back 100+ years to find a case on point, this is a major transgression.
What sanctions were brought against that earlier lawmaker?
Veritas78 wrote on October 16, 2007 2:29 PM:At some point, the citizens of Alaska must be held accountable for electing a corrupt Governor, Senator, and Representative. Perhaps the entire state is so accustomed to snuffling at the trough that they no longer view their elected officials' behavior as disgraceful. If so, then it's time to teach them a lesson and cut them off the federal dole.
eric wrote on October 16, 2007 2:38 PM:Here's the case,
Marshall Field & Co. vs. Clark
http://supreme.justia.com/us/143/649/case.html
This passage is interesting:
"It is said that, under any other view, it becomes possible for the speaker of the house of representatives and the president of the senate to impose upon the people as a law a bill that was never passed by congress. But this possibility is too remote to be seriously considered in the present inquiry. It suggests a deliberate conspiracy to which the presiding officers, the committees on enrolled bills, and the clerks of the two houses must necessarily be parties, all acting with a common purpose to defeat an expression of the popular will in the mode prescribed by the constitution."
Clearly written before the founding of the Modern GOP. Too remote, indeed.
Kuparuk wrote on October 16, 2007 2:43 PM:Veritas78 wrote on October 16, 2007 2:29 PM:
"At some point, the citizens of Alaska must be held accountable for electing a corrupt Governor, Senator, and Representative."
Go look at your president, then go look in the mirror. This problem is not limited to Alaska. If it weren't for upright Alaskans working hard for years to bring this to the surface, you wouldn't be hearing about it now.
Note that: Alaskans busted their own corrupt government. Stop living in stereotypes.
heh wrote on October 16, 2007 3:05 PM:Former Alaska state Rep. Anderson got 5 years today. The judge said he "sold the public trust".
It does seem like the whole state is a cesspool of corruption. Cozy state isn't it?
from adn.com
As it is, Anderson's career as a legislator is finished, Stockler said. Anderson knows now that he�s brought shame to the entire state of Alaska and the Legislature, Stockler said.
Prosecutor Joe Bottini told Sedwick he thought Anderson�s late show of remorse was a facade.
Whats resulted from this conviction and the overall investigation as a whole is that the public's faith in the integrity of our legislative system is eroded seriously, Bottini said. ... People are looking at this going �Are they all dirty?��
Anderson was the first Alaska legislator convicted in the ongoing political corruption investigation that burst into view last year with the FBI raids of lawmakers� offices. Another, former Rep. Pete Kott, was convicted last month and two others are awaiting trial.
WestofLeft wrote on October 16, 2007 3:41 PM:I have not read the entire opinion, as it is as verbose as a Nineteenth opinion could possibly be, but as far as I can tell, it stands for the proposition that the register, or journal, maintained by the two legislatures do not control as to whether a specific clause was actually voted on or not.
The controlling elements are:
Signature by the Speaker and President of the Senate; Signature (or passage by a two-thirds majority of both houses) by the President; and publication by the Secretary of State.
The grounds were odd: that since legislatures are so topsy-turvy in their actions, their journals are not to be trusted as business records typically are in the U.S.
Now, this is of course a long, long time before either xerography or eMail. But it is precedent AFAICT.
Anybody got a clearer perception?
WestofLeft wrote on October 16, 2007 3:45 PM:I have not read the entire opinion, as it is as verbose as a Nineteenth opinion could possibly be, but as far as I can tell, it stands for the proposition that the register, or journal, maintained by the two legislatures do not control as to whether a specific clause was actually voted on or not.
The controlling elements are:
Signature by the Speaker and President of the Senate; Signature (or passage by a two-thirds majority of both houses) by the President; and publication by the Secretary of State.
The grounds were odd: that since legislatures are so topsy-turvy in their actions, their journals are not to be trusted as business records typically are in the U.S.
Now, this is of course a long, long time before either xerography or eMail. But it is precedent AFAICT.
Anybody got a clearer perception?
Don.
cracker wrote on October 16, 2007 5:08 PM:Alaskans did not bust their government THE FBI DID
Ray Metcalfe called bullsh*t for 20 years but local media and every other Alaskan did not support him. If you live here and say its f*ing cesspool of corruption every Alaskan will say "Oh, its more corrupt in Chicago"
No one will deals with reality in Alaska its give me the PFD and don't tax me
Yes, many people in Alaska hate the law and FBI because the law in other states and FBI are probably looking for them!
breakspear wrote on October 16, 2007 8:28 PM:Don Young or 'Don Old' by now he's been in Congress since 1892 it seems thinks the public's money is his to do with as he pleases for any interest group that fancies him. If y ohaud nothing to hide or nothing that was illicit or illegal to do, then why the midnight hour changing of this clause's wording, Donny old fool? It's because you know the system and have bilked it clearly for many years and thought you'd get one more cookie outta that money jar. Well, now you've been caught red-handed and red-faced and you're sorry derriere should hopefully be fired next year. Unless you're forced to resign in disgrace. That's what I want. You deserve it, you cantankerous thief.
Kuparuk wrote on October 16, 2007 8:38 PM:Ray was an Outsider? Clyde was? I was?
The FBI did not come in on its own accord. The FBI was brought in only after the doors to enforcement options provided by the Alaskan government were closed by those running it.
Ray was not the only person working on this effort. He was the most resourceful, and accomplished the most, but he was not a lone gunman by any means.
Ray was in a better position to take more public action -- some of us were blacklisted by the industry and paid heavy penalties for doing what we knew was right. Ray didn't have that problem.
The FBI listened to an Alaskan who showed the evidence gathered by himself and several other Alaskans before taking action. It did not move in to clean up our mess *for* us: It moved in at our plea for help.
sourdough wrote on November 8, 2007 11:07 AM:Don is at it yet again. He introduced HR 3560 which will give away 85,000 acres of Federal Land in the Tongass National Forest on Prince of Wakles Island to the Sea Alaska Corporation.
You do the math at 100,000 bucks a acre.
The land has old growth trees and is adjacent to the water.
The people of the United States paid a 100,000 bucks a mile to build roads into this prime parcel of real estate. There are several hundred miles of roads built plus the site of an old logging camp in a beautiful bay.
This time liberal Democrats are cosponsers ie Patrick Kennedy and others.