Bush snubs McCaskill amendments
WASHINGTON–Sen. Claire McCaskill had expected to cheer President George W. Bush’s signing last week of a sweeping defense bill, which included two provisions she championed. Instead, she was fuming.
That’s because when Bush signed the bill, he said he had the right to disregard McCaskill’s two amendments.
Using a controversial tool called a “signing statement,” Bush said the administration had the right not to cooperate with an independent commission created to investigate wartime contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
McCaskill was a key author of the commission provision, which she said would be a modern-day Truman commission to account for billions of dollars wasted in Iraq.
Bush’s signing statement also said his administration had the right to ignore a McCaskill a measure protecting whisteblowers who work for independent contractors and come forward with reports of abuse or fraud from retaliation from their employers, a protection already extended to federal workers.
Bush’s statement said those amendments, along with two others included in the bill, could “purport to impose requirements that could inhibit the president’s ability to carry out his constitutional obligations.”
A White House spokeswoman told the Associated Press that parts of the contracting provision could be read to require the Justice Department to report whether or not they are prosecuting individuals.
But McCaskill said both provisions were vital if the government was going to tackle the issue of waste and abuse of taxpayers’ dollars. She said she was exploring what recourse she had to reverse Bush’s decision. McCaskill said Bush’s move amounted to him saying, “I’m going to sign this [bill] but I don’t really mean it.”
(4 votes, average: 5 out of 5)
Loading ...
Sounds like the status quo in government to me, just like when Bush signed the earmark ban executive order, not even reported in the PD. I can’t imagine that one sticking either.