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.