April 30, 2008 – 6:39 p.m.
The House cleared a bill Wednesday that would instruct the Justice Department to investigate a controversial earmark for a Florida highway project.
The bill (
Alaska Republican
A defiant Young told the House earlier in the day he had done nothing improper in connection with the $10 million Florida earmark, which he said was backed by the community and the local congressman.
“I have been the subject of much innuendo concerning my intent of this project,” he said. “These accusations have little if any connection with what occurred.”
Young, who was Transportation and Infrastructure chairman at the time, has been accused of changing an earmark in the 2005 highway law (PL 109-59) after Congress had taken final action to clear the legislation but before the president signed it. The change steered $10 million to study building an interchange off Interstate 75 near Fort Myers at Coconut Road. A major campaign donor and fundraiser for Young owned property near the proposed interchange.
The provision calling for the investigation, inserted by the Senate, was part of a bill that would make technical changes to the 2005 law, as well as a number of substantive changes to transportation programs and policies.
Young insisted it would have been impossible for him alone to change the earmark and that it went through the standard “enrollment” process of making small technical changes before a bill reaches the White House. Critics have said the substance of the earmark was changed after passage to direct the money to the specific project.
“A committee chairman does not control the enrollment process,” Young countered. Young also insisted there was local support for the project, pointing to a study of road improvements commissioned by the president of a local university. He said the area’s congressman, Republican
“This project was asked for by the community,” Young said. “It was supported by the congressman from that district. But, because of the Senate, and I can speak to the House on this, the Senate is meddling in House affairs.”
Mack has long tried to distance himself from the earmark — which local transportation officials have said they oppose — and he seemed to take issue with Young’s characterization on the floor.
As the Alaskan left the House chamber, he stopped by the seat that Mack occupied. Mack rose from his aisle seat to confront Young. The two men engaged in a heated, face-to-face conversation, with Young pointing his finger at Mack’s chest. As Young left the chamber, he turned and yelled something to Mack, who jumped up to follow before returning to his seat.
“It was a passionate discussion between passionate people” about the “entire matter,” said Mack’s chief of staff, Jeff Cohen.
Cohen said Mack had nothing to do with the money for Coconut Road. On the floor Wednesday, Mack said he supported returning the earmark to its original language. “While this matter has received well-deserved scrutiny, the legislative process, however flawed it has been, is now doing what the people want and deserve,” Mack said.
The so-called technical correction bill would make changes to other earmarks in the $286.5 billion highway law.
Among those is $45 million for a magnetic levitation rail line from Las Vegas to Anaheim, Calif. The 2005 law directed the money to the Treasury’s general fund instead of designating it as contract authority.
The bill would increase from 0.5 percent to 0.75 percent the minimum proportion each state would receive in federal grants for highway safety programs.
It would re-emphasize that the Federal Transit Administration must take into account economic development and land-use effects when evaluating and rating proposed capital investment projects, which are known as “new starts.” Currently, the FTA gives more weight to factors such as mobility improvements, environmental benefits, and cost-effectiveness.
The bill also would alter the minimum penalties that states must impose on drunk drivers in order to avoid losing federal highway aid. Current law requires at least a one-year suspension of the individual’s driver’s license. The bill would allow the penalty to be either a minimum one-year suspension or a combination of a 45-day suspension of all driving privileges followed by a period with limited driving privileges for getting to work, school or an alcohol treatment program, provided that an ignition interlock device is installed on vehicles owned or operated by the driver.
Molly K. Hooper and Alan K. Ota contributed to this story.