Share

House Overwhelmingly Rejects Signing Statement

by: Walter Alarkon  |  The Hill

photo
President Obama's signing statement, tacked onto last month's war supplemental bill, claimed he could ignore Congress's mandate to pressure the World Bank on labor and environmental standards. (Photo: Getty Images)

    The House rebuked President Obama for trying to ignore restrictions to international aid payments, voting overwhelmingly for an amendment forcing the administration to abide by its constraints.

    House members approved an amendment by a 429-2 vote to have the Obama administration pressure the World Bank to strengthen labor and environmental standards and require a Treasury Department report on World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) activities. The amendment to a 2010 funding bill for the State Department and foreign operations was proposed by Rep. Kay Granger (R-Texas), but it received broad bipartisan support.

    The conditions on World Bank and IMF funding were part of the $106 billion war supplemental bill that was passed last month. Obama, in a statement made as he signed the bill, said that he would ignore the conditions.

    They would "interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations by directing the Executive to take certain positions in negotiations or discussions with international organizations and foreign governments, or by requiring consultation with the Congress prior to such negotiations or discussions," Obama said in the signing statement.

    Senior Democrats and Republicans railed against the notion that the president could ignore a law they had passed and he had signed.

    "We do this not just on behalf of this institution, but on behalf of this democracy," said Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.). "There's kind of a unilateralism, an undemocratic, unreachable way about these signing statements."

    President George W. Bush had used signing statements to ignore a number of provisions in bills that he signed into law, frustrating Democrats in Congress. One Bush signing statement allowed the administration to ignore a provision banning the torture of terror detainees in situations threatening the nation's security.

    Frank and Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Texas) said that one way they could get presidents to stop issuing signing statements casting aside laws would be to refuse to fund their priorities. The amendment passed Thursday seeks to nullify Obama's signing statement by withholding funds from any agreement involving the Treasury Department that doesn't follow the conditions set out in the supplemental bill.

    "The signal we send to the Treasury is very clear: Ignore statute at your peril," Kirk said.

    The U.S. funding for the IMF, which will come in the form of a $108 billion credit line, was a sticking point in negotiations over the war supplemental bill. House Republicans opposed the legislation despite their support for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan because they viewed the IMF funding as an unnecessary "global bailout." House and Senate leaders included constraints on the IMF and World Bank funding as a way to ensure support from lawmakers skeptical over sending more money abroad, said House Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.).

    "Sometimes, the only way the votes can be found to provide the funds the admin wants is to provide certain limitations on the money," Obey said Thursday in a floor speech criticizing Obama's signing statement.

    The State Department and foreign operations appropriations bill that contained the amendment was expected to win passage late Thursday. Both Democratic and Republican appropriators spoke in support of it during the floor debate Thursday afternoon.

  

»


Comments

This is a moderated forum. Β It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

The president is not above

The president is not above the law. We don't have a monarchy. I am glad that congress is putting a stop to at least some of the signing statements. Now we need to get congress to do the will of the people instead of making laws that are against the will of the people. This is congress signing statements. People voted for them to end the war and bring the criminals to justice. We need a way to enforce the will of the people. Perhaps a solution would be to have representative lose office if they go against what the promised in their campaigns.

Why did the Dems not stand

Why did the Dems not stand up against Bush?

Better late than never, but

Better late than never, but it is sad that it took Congress so many years to find its backbone. Now that Congress has stood up to the president will it have the courage to stand up to the lobbyists throwing money around to get special treatment?

Good for congress. Now they

Good for congress. Now they only have about a thousand bad decisions to make up for since 2001. This president, as most presidents, doesn't want to give up any dictatorial power inherited from his predecessor. It seems as well that he wants to amplify on some of them. Aah, the transparent regime of Mr. Obama becomes a little more murky.

Once again, Obama abandons

Once again, Obama abandons supporting a morally sound issue in the name of economics' concerns - even as Republicans jump on board bi-partisan-style (isn't that his favorite thing: "bipartisanship"?, showing that HE STANDS FOR NOTHING. This President is what you call a Blue-Dog, Corporate Friendly Democrat, different from the Republicans in only a few social areas. I am beginning to HATE Obama, this very eloquent, wordy liar who makes good speeches, and who, through the betrayed, ignored, & disenchanted left, may very easily make room for another Republican madman in 2012 to sit in the White House. After all, like Clinton, he is in essence another Republican wearing Democratic clothing.

To 17:35: Good question. And

To 17:35: Good question. And why are Republicans, who are adament defenders of NAFTA, IMF and the WORLD BANK, voting to impose restrictions on the IMF? This is something that would NEVER, EVER, happen under a Republican majority. This kind of bill would become trash for the waste paper basket - if I read this article right.

Dams in Africa and elsewhere

Dams in Africa and elsewhere may be what the IMF and World Bank are intending, according to a posting today on an energy site. This is especially sickening since water and land can then be lost for local people in favor of centralized mega-projects that have catastrophic risk in case of earthquakes or other reasons for failure. Dams can disrupt, bury, and disrespect ancient ways of saving water and using it for plant and animal diversity. The usual villains would want things this way so they can mono-crop and control food in addition to water. Some of the old ways made sure water got cleaned and filtered before it went into rivers, with its nutrients used on land. While U.S. political parties behave so similarly, the leaders appear to have some different sets of cronies, at least now that the people are catching on and putting hard pressure on the House to audit the Federal Reserve. Maybe some reps are as curious about where the money went as ordinary people. The ones who know where the money went moved to shut down the audit in the Senate, the abode of six-year aristocrats. I just don't think they can hide a heist this big forever. I find myself wondering why they don't just out themselves before they get outed. In PR terms, it's better to throw yourself on the people for mercy before the handcuffs clink shut. They must still think they can worm out. McCain testified against others and just got censure during the S&L mess. If the money is all off-shore, we aren't going to get it back.

As an Australian, I support

As an Australian, I support the President; members of congress are too myopic to see beyond the boundaries of their electorates - a world view is beyond them. The IMF and World Bank are critical to recoverey from USA induced recession.

Congress should have cracked

Congress should have cracked down on Bush's signing state ments. Better late than never. Maybe we can still save the Constitution which makes Congress the legislature and does not allow the President to become a dictator.

To Philip:I don't think you

To Philip:I don't think you understand what these two organizations do and the havoc they cause around the world. There is nothing international about the IMF or World Bank. They represent strictly U.S. interests.

Not "strictly U.S.

Not "strictly U.S. interests", but strictly the interests of a small wealthy oligarchy that apparently controls the US but does not work in the interest of the people or land of the US, let alone the people and land anywhere else in the world.