Due to a clerical error, a bill that would reduce the federal deficit and cut student loan money may not have been officially signed into law.
On Feb. 8, President Bush signed the Deficit Reduction Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 2005, which cuts the deficit by $39 billion and includes cuts to educational loans, Medicare and Medicaid.
Jamin Raskin, director of the Program on Law and Government at the Washington College of Law, said the bill is not law within the meaning of the Constitution.
Two different versions of the bill were passed in Congress, one in the House of Representatives and one in the Senate, which prevents the bill from becoming a law until the clerical error issue is resolved.
The bill Bush signed into law is different than the one passed in the House of Representatives, according to a letter from a Committee on Government Reform to Minority Leader of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca).
The error was made during a conference committee between the House and Senate to iron out differences over the bill. There was a debate over the length of Medicare coverage and on Dec. 19, the House passed the bill and sent it to the Senate, the letter said.
The Senate added an amendment to the bill and it passed 51-50. When the bill was sent back to the House to vote, a clerk made a mistake, extending Medicare coverage to 36 months.
Republican leadership in the House were informed of the problem in January, but because they were concerned about being able to get the bill passed in the Senate again, they brought it to a vote without telling the rest of Congress, the letter said. The bill passed in the House 216-214 on Feb. 1.
Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Ala.) signed a statement saying the bill was passed in the Senate and the House, even though Republican leadership in the House and Senate knew there was an error.
Raskin said that according to the Constitution, bills must be passed in both houses to become laws.
"It would be dangerous for Congress to be able to cut and paste bills like ransom notes after a vote has taken place," he said.
This issue has raised questions of how much the Republicans knew about the error and whether or not they were trying to cover up the mistake in order to get the bill passed and signed without a re-vote or legal challenge.
Dave Farber, a freshman in the School of Public Affairs said, "I would assume that the initial accident was a mistake, but I'd assume it was no mistake that they let it go to a vote."
Patty Nollet, a freshman in the Kogod School of Business, said, "I'd like to say they didn't realize the seriousness [of the mistake], but they're smart people and I think they stuck it in hoping that people wouldn't notice."
For now, both Republicans and Democrats are waiting to see if the law will be challenged or if Congressional leadership will vote on it again to avoid a potentially costly and damaging legal challenge.
"I would be very surprised if there is not a legal challenge," said Daniel Dreisbach, an SPA professor and former clerk for the Appeals Court. "The factual answers are not trivial."
While some Republicans may argue that the mistake is not important enough to merit a re-vote, others disagree.
If the law does not survive a legal challenge or revote, the Democratic Party may benefit, Farber said.
"I think if it doesn't get passed it'll be a big boost for the Democrats and have a minimal effect on the Republicans," he said.
Nollet said she thinks the bill is something that could help the country.
"Yes, it cuts money for college loans, but I think some people who get college loans aren't deserving, and it would just make it more selective so the right people would get loans," she said. "I think that re-voting is important because if it was that borderline, then it has a good chance that it wouldn't pass again"
