President Bush was given a massive appropriations bill (so called "Omnibus" spending bill) that wrapped up this legislative session. Congress was unable to complete appropriations, and thus had to bundle what was left and send it to the president for his consideration. President Bush had previously threatened to veto this bill (HR 2764), but in the end he got what he wanted out of it (which is usually what happens with these type of bills).
What is also normal with Omnibus bills are a litany of challenges in the president's signing statement. For instance, H.J.Res. 2, which is an Omnibus bill for FY 2003 that contained 35 challenges. Even better is H.R. 2673, which is the Omnibus for FY 2004. President Bush's signing statement of H.R. 2673 contained 50 distinct challenges. So what a let down when we get to H.R. 2764. President Bush lightly slaps the Congress on the hand for not reducing earmarks (although he doesn't say how many earmarks were added by the administration). And then he adds the challenges. Now this is a guy who specifically picked out things the complain about in previous signing statements. For instance, the 2004 Omnibus had the following language:
The executive branch shall construe as advisory the provisions of
the Act that purport to: (1) direct or burden the Executive's conduct of
foreign relations, including sections 514, 531, 548, 557, 570, 571, 589,
610, and 618(b) of, and language relating to an agreement under the
heading ``Other Bilateral Economic Assistance, Economic Support Fund''
in, the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act; and sections 404, 612,
and 635 of the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations Act and language
in that Act relating to World Trade Organization negotiations and United
Nations Security Council voting; (2) limit the President's authority as
Commander in Chief, such as language under the heading ``Andean
Counterdrug Initiative'' in the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act
and section 610 of the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations Act; (3)
limit the President's authority to supervise the unitary executive
branch, such as section 610(3) of the Commerce, Justice, State
Appropriations Act, and sections 618 and 628 of the Transportation,
Treasury Appropriations Act and the language in that Act relating to
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review of executive branch orders,
activities, regulations, transcripts, and testimony; or (4) restrict the
President's constitutional authority to make appointments, such as
section 604(c)(3)(B) of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act and
subsections 112(a) and (d) of the Commerce, Justice, State
Appropriations Act.
This is what President Bush says in the current signing statement that hints of a challenge:
Finally, this legislation contains certain provisions similar to those found in prior appropriations bills passed by the Congress that might be construed to be inconsistent with my Constitutional responsibilities. To avoid such potential infirmities, the executive branch will interpret and construe such provisions in the same manner as I have previously stated in regard to similar provisions.
Blow me away!
It seems that the heightened attention to the signing statement combined with a change in party control of Congress have had a measurable effect on the use of the signing statement. Most notable is the drop in signing statements that contain challenges. Up to this bill, President Bush has issued just one signing statement that contained 11 challenges. Whether this effect is permanent remains to be seen, but clearly there is an effect. The next session--President Bush's final year in office--should bring less attention to what he is doing in office. First, the belief that a lame duck presidency means the president is impotent will work to his advantage as all eyes turn towards the next president. And second, a presidential election will drain press resources to follow how President Bush flexes executive power.
