Even if Congress says it gets to have unexpurgated reports from the Administration, Bush asserts that he can purge them all he sees fit
President Bush, again defying Congress, says he has the power to edit the Homeland Security Department’s reports about whether it obeys privacy rules while handling background checks, ID cards and watchlists.
In the law Bush signed Wednesday, Congress stated no one but the privacy officer could alter, delay or prohibit the mandatory annual report on Homeland Security department activities that affect privacy, including complaints. But Bush, in a signing statement attached to the agency’s 2007 spending bill, said he will interpret that section “in a manner consistent with the President’s constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch.”
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said it’s appropriate for the administration to know what reports go to Congress and to review them beforehand. “There can be a discussion on whether to accept a change or a nuance,” she said. “It could be any number of things.”
Now, Executive/Congressional tensions are a longstanding tradition in Washington (though you’d expect the highly compliant GOP Congress we have to continue to roll over for the President), and the Congress hasn’t been always rational about this (e.g., “How dare the FBI search a congressman’s office! Blasphemy!”). Separation of Powers contests are a natural tension of our form of government.
That said, Bush once again adding a “signing statement” to a bill, essentially defying Congress about whether he and his have to report back to Congress as to whether they’ve followed the law … well, yeah, that just seems kinda over the top.
Bush’s signing statement Wednesday challenges several other provisions in the Homeland Security spending bill.
Bush, for example, said he’d disregard a requirement that the director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency must have at least five years experience and “demonstrated ability in and knowledge of emergency management and homeland security.” His rationale was that it “rules out a large portion of those persons best qualified by experience and knowledge to fill the office.”
Um … by setting a minimum number of years experience and demonstrated ability, Congress is ruling out folks that Bush thiinks are “best qualified”? Yikes.
And, again, what the hell? If Bush finds the provisions unreasonable, he should veto the bill. These kinds of regular “line item veto” via signing statement are exactly the kind of stunt that leads people to believe that Bush just doesn’t care about what’s legal, he cares about what’s convenient for him.