News
May 01 2008
Missing pieces
Rep. Don Young talked about the $10 million Coconut Road earmark controversy on the floor of the U.S. House on Wednesday, clearing up some questions and creating others.
In his speech to Congress, he didn’t directly address exactly what his role was in changing the 2005 highway bill after it was approved by Congress and before it was sent to the president.
However, in a later interview with reporter R.A. Dillon, Young said an unknown member of his staff changed the wording without checking with him, correcting what Young believes was an error in the bill.
The U.S. Senate has asked for an investigation of the matter by the Justice Department, an unprecedented step in federal affairs.
Young said Wednesday “The Senate is meddling in House affairs” and he warned that this is a “slippery, slippery road” for Congress.
This might be the road less traveled, but complete disclosure of what happened is essential.
If this is meddling, let’s have more of it.
In his speech, Young said the earmark was not his idea, that the money was requested by people in Florida and had local support.
What this comes down to is whether the change was correcting an error, as Young claims, or changing the appropriation to a different project, as others allege.
Young said this type of change is a normal part of the “enrollment process,” in which staff members meet to make technical changes to fix errors in legislation.
“It’s not the first time in the enrollment process, even in this bill,” he said.
“Jacksonville was mentioned in the bill. What we didn’t know, the Senate and House voted on it, that there were six Jacksonvilles in this nation. It had to be changed, and it was changed prior to the president, going to his desk and the House never voted on it. And I could go on to other cases where legislation has been changed by the enrollment process when it is considered not the intent of the House, not the intent of the House.”
But is changing the purpose of an earmark from widening a road to an interchange study the same as clearing up confusion about which of the several towns named Jacksonville is referred to in a bill?
From what we’ve heard so far, we think the answer is no.
Given the national furor on this topic, Young should be trying to find out who on his staff changed the bill and why.
Young’s constituents have a right to hear more about this from the congressman, who still has some explaining to do.
In his speech to Congress, he didn’t directly address exactly what his role was in changing the 2005 highway bill after it was approved by Congress and before it was sent to the president.
However, in a later interview with reporter R.A. Dillon, Young said an unknown member of his staff changed the wording without checking with him, correcting what Young believes was an error in the bill.
The U.S. Senate has asked for an investigation of the matter by the Justice Department, an unprecedented step in federal affairs.
Young said Wednesday “The Senate is meddling in House affairs” and he warned that this is a “slippery, slippery road” for Congress.
This might be the road less traveled, but complete disclosure of what happened is essential.
If this is meddling, let’s have more of it.
In his speech, Young said the earmark was not his idea, that the money was requested by people in Florida and had local support.
What this comes down to is whether the change was correcting an error, as Young claims, or changing the appropriation to a different project, as others allege.
Young said this type of change is a normal part of the “enrollment process,” in which staff members meet to make technical changes to fix errors in legislation.
“It’s not the first time in the enrollment process, even in this bill,” he said.
“Jacksonville was mentioned in the bill. What we didn’t know, the Senate and House voted on it, that there were six Jacksonvilles in this nation. It had to be changed, and it was changed prior to the president, going to his desk and the House never voted on it. And I could go on to other cases where legislation has been changed by the enrollment process when it is considered not the intent of the House, not the intent of the House.”
But is changing the purpose of an earmark from widening a road to an interchange study the same as clearing up confusion about which of the several towns named Jacksonville is referred to in a bill?
From what we’ve heard so far, we think the answer is no.
Given the national furor on this topic, Young should be trying to find out who on his staff changed the bill and why.
Young’s constituents have a right to hear more about this from the congressman, who still has some explaining to do.
