News
WASHINGTON — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will not object to language in a highway technical corrections bill that calls for the Justice Department to investigate a controversial earmark by Alaska Republican Rep. Don Young.
The bill, pending before the House, largely deals with minor corrections to the transportation law passed in 2005, but it also includes a measure approved by the Senate that would ask the Justice Department to probe how the description of the Coconut Road earmark was changed after both chambers of Congress voted on the final version but before it went to the president’s desk for signing.
The original description in the earmark was $10 million for widening and improvements to Interstate 75 in Southwest Florida. But during the House enrollment process, the earmark was changed to an interchange study at Coconut Road and I-75 in Lee County.
Young, then-chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, placed the earmark in the $286 billion bill at the request of Florida Gulf Coast University, which had lobbied for an interchange as part of hurricane evacuation improvements to I-75.
Young has refused to talk about the change, citing the advice of his attorneys. His staff members have said they do not know who requested the change but that the final description reflected Young’s original intent for the money to go to the interchange and that proper House protocol was followed.
Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., put the Justice Department investigation amendment in the corrections bill last week before it was passed over to the House.
Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., a staunch opponent of earmarks, had originally called for a bicameral, bipartisan committee to conduct an internal investigation into the change, but that approach lost out to Boxer.
During Senate consideration of the Boxer amendment, Pelosi said she would support an investigation by the House ethics committee, but she has so far not acted.
“There are many questions out there about how the changes occurred, and the ethics committee should take a look at it,” Pelosi spokesman Nadeam Elshami said Monday.
Elshami said Pelosi would not attempt to remove the Boxer amendment from the bill when it comes up on the House floor, expected some time in the next few weeks.
House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, has said he would back an ethics investigation into the earmark.
“Mr. Young’s office has welcomed any inquiry or examination of the earmark, and I would support that as well,” Boehner said in a prepared statement. “I think it’s in everyone’s interest that we know what happened and did not happen here.”
Meredith Kenny, a spokeswoman for Young, said her boss has no objection to an investigation into the earmark.
“Congressman Young has always confidently supported and welcomed an open earmark process,” Kenny said. “If Congress decides to take up the matter of this particular project, there will be no objection from Mr. Young.”
Young’s staff members maintain that if a problem exists, it is with the enrollment process — which is under the watch of Pelosi — and not with the specific earmark. During the enrollment process, all changes must be approved by a bipartisan, bicameral group of staff members before the bill is sent to the enrollment clerk.
The government watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense has been calling for a House ethics investigation since September. The group accuses Young of sponsoring the earmark to help a developer who stood to benefit if the interchange was built.
The watchdog group supports having a Justice Department probe but believes the ethics panel should also examine whether House rules were violated.
So far, neither Pelosi nor any other lawmaker has signed a formal request for the House ethics committee to look into the matter, an official step needed to launch an internal investigation.
A spokesman for Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., on Monday called the Boxer amendment a “political ploy” and said the appropriate body to resolve the controversy was the House ethics panel.
“There are already processes to investigate such abuse — each body has a standing ethics committee,” said Matt Dempsey, Inhofe’s spokesman. “If House leadership was concerned about this issue — prior to being embarrassed into it by Sen. Coburn — they would have initiated an ethics investigation prior to last week.”
Contact Washington correspondent R.A. Dillon at dcnews@newsminer.com.
The bill, pending before the House, largely deals with minor corrections to the transportation law passed in 2005, but it also includes a measure approved by the Senate that would ask the Justice Department to probe how the description of the Coconut Road earmark was changed after both chambers of Congress voted on the final version but before it went to the president’s desk for signing.
The original description in the earmark was $10 million for widening and improvements to Interstate 75 in Southwest Florida. But during the House enrollment process, the earmark was changed to an interchange study at Coconut Road and I-75 in Lee County.
Young, then-chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, placed the earmark in the $286 billion bill at the request of Florida Gulf Coast University, which had lobbied for an interchange as part of hurricane evacuation improvements to I-75.
Young has refused to talk about the change, citing the advice of his attorneys. His staff members have said they do not know who requested the change but that the final description reflected Young’s original intent for the money to go to the interchange and that proper House protocol was followed.
Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., put the Justice Department investigation amendment in the corrections bill last week before it was passed over to the House.
Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., a staunch opponent of earmarks, had originally called for a bicameral, bipartisan committee to conduct an internal investigation into the change, but that approach lost out to Boxer.
During Senate consideration of the Boxer amendment, Pelosi said she would support an investigation by the House ethics committee, but she has so far not acted.
“There are many questions out there about how the changes occurred, and the ethics committee should take a look at it,” Pelosi spokesman Nadeam Elshami said Monday.
Elshami said Pelosi would not attempt to remove the Boxer amendment from the bill when it comes up on the House floor, expected some time in the next few weeks.
House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, has said he would back an ethics investigation into the earmark.
“Mr. Young’s office has welcomed any inquiry or examination of the earmark, and I would support that as well,” Boehner said in a prepared statement. “I think it’s in everyone’s interest that we know what happened and did not happen here.”
Meredith Kenny, a spokeswoman for Young, said her boss has no objection to an investigation into the earmark.
“Congressman Young has always confidently supported and welcomed an open earmark process,” Kenny said. “If Congress decides to take up the matter of this particular project, there will be no objection from Mr. Young.”
Young’s staff members maintain that if a problem exists, it is with the enrollment process — which is under the watch of Pelosi — and not with the specific earmark. During the enrollment process, all changes must be approved by a bipartisan, bicameral group of staff members before the bill is sent to the enrollment clerk.
The government watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense has been calling for a House ethics investigation since September. The group accuses Young of sponsoring the earmark to help a developer who stood to benefit if the interchange was built.
The watchdog group supports having a Justice Department probe but believes the ethics panel should also examine whether House rules were violated.
So far, neither Pelosi nor any other lawmaker has signed a formal request for the House ethics committee to look into the matter, an official step needed to launch an internal investigation.
A spokesman for Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., on Monday called the Boxer amendment a “political ploy” and said the appropriate body to resolve the controversy was the House ethics panel.
“There are already processes to investigate such abuse — each body has a standing ethics committee,” said Matt Dempsey, Inhofe’s spokesman. “If House leadership was concerned about this issue — prior to being embarrassed into it by Sen. Coburn — they would have initiated an ethics investigation prior to last week.”
Contact Washington correspondent R.A. Dillon at dcnews@newsminer.com.
