Government watchdog says Bush ignored law after 30% of signing statements..

[Tellurian]

"The Government Accountability Office issued a report showing that US government agencies ignored Congressional legislation on 30% of the occasions when President George W. Bush issued a 'presidential signing statement' after signing bills into law. The report was released today by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV), Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee."

Rep. Conyers slammed Bush's use of signing statements, which he noted were far more frequent than any previous administration.

"The Administration is thumbing its nose at the law," he said. "This study calls for an extensive review of these practices, something the Administration has so far refused to do."

Senator Byrd agreed.

"The White House cannot pick and choose which laws it follows and which it ignores. When a president signs a bill into law, the president signs the entire bill. The Administration cannot be in the business of cherry picking the laws it likes and the laws it doesn't," the President Pro Tempore of the Senate said. "This GAO opinion underscores the fact that the Bush White House is constantly grabbing for more power, seeking to drive the people's branch of government to the sidelines....We must continue to demand accountability and openness from this White House to counter this power grab."

The GAO examined a sample of 19 specific provisions from fiscal year 2006 appropriations acts where Bush took exception with a signing statement. It found the laws passed by Congress were subsequently ignored about 30% of the time.

"Of these 19 provisions, 10 provisions were executed as written, 6 were not, and 3 were not triggered and so there was no agency action to examine," said the report, which was issued as a letter and signed by GAO General Counsel Gary L. Kepplinger.

While the Congress members who released the report passed judgment on the legality of the post-signing statement actions, the GAO did not.

"We did not assess the merits of the President’s objections, nor did we examine the constitutionality of the provisions to which the President objected," Kepplinger wrote.

Kepplinger noted that there were four broad categories under which the President objected to a law passed by Congress: the theory of the unitary executive; the Commander in Chief power, national security, foreign relations, or law enforcement; bicameralism and presentment clauses of the Constitution; and miscellaneous categories related to the Recess Appointments Clause and the Fifth Amendment."

"The six instances in which the agency ignored the law after the president issued the statement with his signature were broken down by the GAO:

* - The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) did not seek approval from the congressional appropriations committees prior to incurring obligations for administrative expenses beyond the level set by Congress.

* - The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) did not submit a proposal and expenditure plan for housing as directed by Congress because it does not normally produce such plans.

* - The Department of Agriculture did not obtain prior approval for a transfer of funds.

* - The Department of Defense (DOD) did not include as part of the fiscal year 2007 budget submission to Congress separate budget justification documents for the costs of all contingency operations for the Military Personnel, Operation and Maintenance, and Procurement accounts.

* - DOD responded to an inquiry from the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs, House Committee on Appropriations, in 38 days, instead of 21 days as directed.

* - The Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) did not relocate its checkpoints in the Tucson sector every 7 days as directed by Congress.

While GAO acknowledged the law had been ignored, it did not say whether the President's signing statement had played a factor in that act of omission.

"Although we found the agencies did not execute the provisions as enacted, we cannot conclude that agency noncompliance was the result of the President’s signing statements," Kepplinger wrote.

The GAO's full report pdf to Congress can be downloaded at this link.

[Norquist Nemesis]

1. Refresh my memory, please

What was the record number of signing statements he signed?

[Tellurian]

2. Is the pdf link working for you?

There is a comparison of past presidential signings including the numbers of; comparison of subject matter; and something very interesting, the Unitary Executive Powers. Bush is slowly draining Congressional/power/oversight, simply by the arbitrary interpretation of words.

I've only gotten through the first 28 pages...will finish the rest as time permits.

[bullimiami]

3. ignoring the law is breaking the law.

why is nothing being done?

[Tellurian]

4. Bush is using his own interpretation of the law..

and if Congress doesn't call him on it soon, they'll be out of a job.

shades of Adolf, embezzlement, drug running.. oh, and something in there for brother Marvin too...on Pg 21.."Pilot Program for Scholarship program" for 7 th Graders. Marvin is Bush's brother, the brother selling school books. Sounds innocuous, except if you think of it including every 7th grade throughout the country. Cha-ching!

[Tellurian]

5. ...

[Tellurian]

6. Slate minimizing the effect of Bush 's signing statements

..He's draining the Treasury, people. Wherever there are funds earmarked from a specific agency, theres always an excuse..(signing statement) allowing him not to report back to the Appropriations Committee.eg. ("may" is not the same as mandate) Bush signed himself a signing statement stating the dept that oversees the funds getting out to the designated agency need not check to see if the funds have been dispersed and received. HELLO! Anybody Home?


"Until the Reagan presidency, the executive branch had only ever issued a total of 75 signing statements. Reagan, Bush I, and Bill Clinton deployed them 247 times between them. (Clinton issued more statements than Bush I, but fewer than Reagan). According to Cooper, by the end of 2004, Bush had issued 108 signing statements presenting 505 different constitutional challenges. He has yet to veto anything.

How important are these executive-branch constitutional challenges? Not very. While a few courts—including the Supreme Court on occasion—have nodded their heads at a signing statement in attempting to construe the intent behind a piece of legislation, they are consulted only rarely and given limited legal weight. Bush's legal claims that black is white and up is down won't likely trump the clear and express will of Congress in a courtroom anytime soon. Certainly you'd need at least three more Sam Alitos on the Supreme Court before you need to fear a judicial declaration that they represent some kind of binding legal authority. Does that mean the statements are legally meaningless and that the fretting over them represents yet more reflexive anti-Bush hysteria?"

Not hardly.

http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2007/06/20/the-fallout-from-president-bushs-signing-statement-spree/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slate.com%2Fid%2F2168718%2Ffr%2Fflyout&frame=true

[Tellurian]

7. Appropriators come under common fire

3 Republicans and 1 Democrat under investigation:

Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens, the number-two Republican on the Senate Appropriations Committee, is under investigation by the Justice Department for his ties to an Alaska-based oil services company, according to media reports. And he's not alone: Three other congressional appropriators are facing federal investigations, too.

Stevens, a veteran appropriator and the longest-serving Republican in Senate history, is under federal investigation over his ties to Veco Corp., an Alaska-based oil services company, according to recent media reports.

An article Sunday in the Anchorage Daily News said a federal grand jury is looking into the events surrounding the remodeling of Stevens' home in Girdwood, Alaska, 40 miles south of Anchorage.

Some of the construction at the home was tied to Veco, and contractors who were hired or supervised by Veco officials.

Several former Veco executives have already pleaded guilty in an expanding federal corruption probe of the firm, and three current and former GOP state legislators in Alaska have been indicted.

Rep. Jerry Lewis of California, the ranking Republican on the House Appropriations Committee, is being investigated over his relationship with another former member of the panel, ex-Rep. Bill Lowery (R-Calif.).

Rep. John Doolittle (R-Calif.) is being scrutinized for his ties to former GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff, and he resigned from the powerful committee after his house was raided by federal agents.

And Rep. Alan B. Mollohan (D-W.Va.), who chairs the Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Subcommittee on House Appropriations, is under investigation for steering money to nonprofits he was linked to, although he denies any wrongdoing.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0607/4585.html