Congressman writes White House: Did President knowingly sign law that didn't pass?
Raw Story | March 16 2006
Representative
Henry Waxman (D-CA) has alleged in a letter to White House Chief of
Staff Andrew Card that President Bush signed a version of the Budget
Reconciliation Act that, in effect, did not pass the House of
Representatives.
Further,
Waxman says there is reason to believe that the Speaker of the House
called President Bush before he signed the law, and alerted him that
the version he was about to sign differed from the one that actually
passed the House. If true, this would put the President in willful
violation of the U.S. Constitution.
The full text of the letter follows:
March 15, 2006
The Honorable Andrew Card
Chief of Staff
The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. Card:
On
February 8, 2006, President Bush signed into law a version of the
Deficit Reduction Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 2005 that was different
in substance from the version that passed the U.S. House of
Representatives. Legal scholars have advised me that the substantive
differences between the versions - which involve $2 billion in federal
spending - mean that this bill did not meet the fundamental
constitutional requirement that both Houses of Congress must pass any
legislation signed into law by the President.
I
am writing to learn what the President and his staff knew about this
constitutional defect at the time the President signed the legislation.
Detailed
background about the legislation and its constitutional defects are
contained in a letter I sent last month to House Minority Leader Nancy
Pelosi, which I have enclosed with this letter.[1] In summary, the
House-passed version of the legislation required the Medicare program
to lease "durable medical equipment," such as wheelchairs, for seniors
and other beneficiaries for up to 36 months, while the version of the
legislation signed by the President limited the duration of these
leases to just 13 months. As the Congressional Budget Office reported,
this seemingly small change from 36 months to 13 months has a
disproportionately large budgetary impact, cutting Medicare outlays by
$2 billion over the next five years.[2]
I
understand that a call was made to the White House before the
legislation was signed by the President advising the White House of the
differences between the bills and seeking advice about how to proceed.
My understanding is that the call was made either by the Speaker of the
House to the President or by the senior staff of the Speaker to the
senior staff of the President.
I would like to know whether my understanding is correct. If it is, the implications are serious.
The
Presentment Clause of the U.S. Constitution states that before a bill
can become law, it must be passed by both Houses of Congress.[3] When
the President took the oath of office, he swore to "preserve, protect,
and defend the Constitution of the United States," which includes the
Presentment Clause. If the President signed the Reconciliation Act
knowing its constitutional infirmity, he would in effect be placing
himself above the Constitution.
I
do not raise this issue lightly. Given the gravity of the matter and
the unusual circumstances surrounding the Reconciliation Act, Congress
and the public need a straightforward explanation of what the President
and his staff knew on February 8, when the legislation was signed into
law.
Sincerely,
Henry A. Waxman Ranking Minority Member
Enclosure
[1] See Letter from Rep. Henry A. Waxman to Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (Feb. 14, 2006).
[2] See Letter from CBO Acting Director Donald Marron to Rep. John M. Spratt, Jr. (Feb. 13, 2006).
[3] U.S. Constitution, Article I, ? 7.
Alert Webmaster
