Obama Signs Spending Bill – With Objections

(CBS)

President Obama this afternoon privately signed the $410 billion omnibus spending bill passed by Congress, which he has acknowledged is "imperfect" because of potentially-unnecessary earmarks. (Read more about the bill here>.)

In announcing his signing of the bill, the president issued a signing statement saying the Department of Justice has advised him that the bill includes provisions that "raise constitutional concerns" and that he thus may not follow them.

"The signing statement on the Omnibus bill very much resembles the kind that President Bush was criticized for," notes CBS News White House Correspondent Mark Knoller.

Mr. Obama outlined five objections in the statement. The first is that certain provisions "would unduly interfere with my constitutional authority in the area of foreign affairs by effectively directing the Executive on how to proceed or not proceed in negotiations or discussions with international organizations and foreign governments."

"I will not treat these provisions as limiting my ability to negotiate and enter into agreements with foreign nations," the president said.

He also noted that a portion of the bill "prohibits the use of certain funds for the use of the Armed Forces in United Nations peacekeeping missions under the command or operational control of a foreign national unless my military advisers have recommended to me that such involvement is in the national interests of the United States."

"This provision raises constitutional concerns by constraining my choice of particular persons to perform specific command functions in military missions, by conditioning the exercise of my authority as Commander in Chief on the recommendations of subordinates within the military chain of command, and by constraining my diplomatic negotiating authority," the president said. "Accordingly, I will apply this provision consistent with my constitutional authority and responsibilities."

Another set of provisions restricts the reallocation of funds; Mr. Obama said "these are impermissible forms of legislative aggrandizement," adding that "executive officials shall treat such guidelines as advisory."

On Monday, Knoller notes, the president issued a presidential memorandum about presidential signing statements.

"There is no doubt that the practice of issuing such statements can be abused," the president said, adding that the statements "should not be used to suggest the President will disregard statutory requirements on the basis of policy agreements."

And yet, Knoller points out, the objections made by the president today "are just like the kind of objections President Bush would raise in signing statements."

The full text of the announcement is below.

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

(AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)

Today I have signed into law H.R. 1105, the "Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009." This bill completes the work of last year by providing the funding necessary for the smooth operation of our Nation's Government.

As I announced this past Monday, it is a legitimate constitutional function, and one that promotes the value of transparency, to indicate when a bill that is presented for Presidential signature includes provisions that are subject to well-founded constitutional objections. The Department of Justice has advised that a small number of provisions of the bill raise constitutional concerns.

Foreign Affairs. Certain provisions of the bill, in titles I and IV of Division B, title IV of Division E, and title VII of Division H, would unduly interfere with my constitutional authority in the area of foreign affairs by effectively directing the Executive on how to proceed or not proceed in negotiations or discussions with international organizations and foreign governments. I will not treat these provisions as limiting my ability to negotiate and enter into agreements with foreign nations.

United Nations Peacekeeping Missions. Section 7050 in Division H prohibits the use of certain funds for the use of the Armed Forces in United Nations peacekeeping missions under the command or operational control of a foreign national unless my military advisers have recommended to me that such involvement is in the national interests of the United States. This provision raises constitutional concerns by constraining my choice of particular persons to perform specific command functions in military missions, by conditioning the exercise of my authority as Commander in Chief on the recommendations of subordinates within the military chain of command, and by constraining my diplomatic negotiating authority. Accordingly, I will apply this provision consistent with my constitutional authority and responsibilities.

Executive Authority to Control Communications with the Congress. Sections 714(1) and 714(2) in Division D prohibit the use of appropriations to pay the salary of any Federal officer or employee who interferes with or prohibits certain communications between Federal employees and Members of Congress. I do not interpret this provision to detract from my authority to direct the heads of executive departments to supervise, control, and correct employees' communications with the Congress in cases where such communications would be unlawful or would reveal information that is properly privileged or otherwise confidential.

Legislative Aggrandizements (committee-approval requirements). Numerous provisions of the legislation purport to condition the authority of officers to spend or reallocate funds on the approval of congressional committees. These are impermissible forms of legislative aggrandizement in the execution of the laws other than by enactment of statutes. Therefore, although my Administration will notify the relevant committees before taking the specified actions, and will accord the recommendations of such committees all appropriate and serious consideration, spending decisions shall not be treated as dependent on the approval of congressional committees. Likewise, one other provision gives congressional committees the power to establish guidelines for funding costs associated with implementing security improvements to buildings. Executive officials shall treat such guidelines as advisory. Yet another provision requires the Secretary of the Treasury to accede to all requests of a Board of Trustees that contains congressional representatives. The Secretary shall treat such requests as nonbinding.

Recommendations Clause Concerns. Several provisions of the Act (including sections 211 and 224(b) of title II of Division I, and section 713 in Division A), effectively purport to require me and other executive officers to submit budget requests to the Congress in particular forms. Because the Constitution gives the President the discretion to recommend only "such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient" (Article II, section 3 of the Constitution), the specified officers and I shall treat these directions as precatory.

BARACK OBAMA

[clcmm36]

The President can't eiliminate earmarks or strike them from the budget according to the Constitiution. How do we get the Senators and Congressmen of both parties to reform the way they do business? They don't have any incentives to change.

[rhs648]

In a normal economy, that is perhaps true. But in the fragile, crippled state our economy is currently in, it might matter alot. President Obama is indeed standing on principle: he is putting the health of the US economy FIRST just as he said he would. And he has proposed a comprehensive plan for eliminating wasteful pork from future budget bills. It is now up to Congress to act accordingly.
Posted by realnews12

Knee jerk reactions will simply cost the taxpayers a lot of wasted money. Sometimes it is better to do nothing and let the economy straighten itself out, Giving money to failing businesses is a serious mistake. It is like throwing money into an endless pit.

[realnews12]

A few days or weeks would not really matter much.

Posted by rhs648 at 9:27 AM : Mar 12, 2009

In a normal economy, that is perhaps true. But in the fragile, crippled state our economy is currently in, it might matter alot. President Obama is indeed standing on principle: he is putting the health of the US economy FIRST just as he said he would. And he has proposed a comprehensive plan for eliminating wasteful pork from future budget bills. It is now up to Congress to act accordingly.

[rhs648]

"The President of the United States does not have line item veto power. This would be a good reason to give it to him....
Posted by clcmm36 at 8:07 AM : Mar 12, 2009"

The line item veto is a slippery slope. It would have been dangerous under Bush and I don't think it would be wise to have it anytime in the future.
Posted by abbe91

President Obama could refuse to sign the bill until pork was removed from it. A few days or weeks would not really matter much. He failed to stand on principle.

[rhs648]

Some wasteful spending (less than Bernie Madoff stole under Bush's run of the SEC), but the country is better off. President Obama kept his word, and the country moves forward. That is huge in today's world. It's good to be an American.
Posted by jxknowles

You would make a great ship capatain. The captain is expected to sink with the ship.

[jxknowles]

Some wasteful spending (less than Bernie Madoff stole under Bush's run of the SEC), but the country is better off. President Obama kept his word, and the country moves forward. That is huge in today's world. It's good to be an American.

[kfor777]

If Republicans really wanted to get this bill rejected all they would have to do is slip in a nude photo of Nancy Pelosi.
Even if Obama didn't reject it at least he would throw up on it.

[realnews12]

I would rather obama said "I went through this bill line by line and cut out all wasteful spending

Posted by jgg00000008 at 8:42 AM : Mar 12, 2009

He does not have the power to do that. He can only send the ENTIRE bill back to Congress and ask them to change it. He cannot pick and choose what items he wants to approve.

[realnews12]

out of almost 9,000 earmarks, do you honestly think all of them were "worthy"?

Posted by jgg00000008 at 8:26 AM : Mar 12, 2009

Probably not. But I think President Obama did the right thing in just signing the bill and laying out his plans for reforming the earmark process for future bills. He does not have a line-item veto. He could only send the bill back to Congress and urge them to implement new earmark rules immediately. They would be unlikely to do so to his satisfaction, so the process would just be repeated over and over, perhaps with tiny incremental improvements to the bill over time. Meanwhile, Congress would be bogged down with last year's budget while action on the FY2010 budget is delayed. Given the incredible number of crisis-level problems both the President and Congress need to deal with, Obama chose wisely in just signing this bill and moving on. The earmarks incur NO spending that was not already in the bill passed by both houses of Congress.

[abbe91]

"Candidate Obama NEVER promised to "get rid of all earmarks". That was John McCain!
Posted by realnews12 at 7:48 AM : Mar 12, 2009"

Indeed, we all remember his notorious "I will veto every single beer" ... oups ...