Luke Skywalker
Super Moderator
{vb:raw ozzmodz_postquote}:
President Obama signs an executive order in the Oval Office of the White House March 19, directing a reduction in the government's greenhouse gas emissions 40 percent over the next ten years.(Photo: BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI, AFP/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON<span style="color: Red;">*</span>— The $1.1 trillion spending bill that President Obama signed Friday represents a cessation of hostilities in his struggle with the Republican-controlled Congress over his use of executive power.
In many ways, the spending bill<span style="color: Red;">*</span>— called an "omnibus" on Capitol Hill because it combines 12 smaller appropriations measures into one legislative vehicle to fund the entire government<span style="color: Red;">*</span>— maintains the status quo. Congress isn't shutting down the government over Obama's delayed deportation policy, but continues to block the transfer of detainees from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to U.S. soil.
In some areas, Congress found ways to express its displeasure with Obama in ways that didn't force a presidential veto, often refusing to appropriate money for Obama's initiatives<span style="color: Red;">*</span>— but not preventing<span style="color: Red;">*</span>him from finding the money himself.
[h=2]Clemency initiative[/h]The original Justice Department<span style="color: Red;">*</span>spending bill passed by a House committee in June would have killed Obama's clemency initiative, which seeks to use the president's constitutional pardon and reprieve power to shorten sentences for certain federal offenders serving long prison terms. Obama had asked for a 66% increase in the budget for the Office of the Pardon Attorney to process the thousands of requests for executive clemency, in order to double the number of lawyers working on those cases.
Congress allowed the clemency initiative to continue, but didn't give Obama all of the funding he wanted to run it. Instead, Congress allowed the administration to temporarily<span style="color: Red;">*</span>transfer money and employees into the office<span style="color: Red;">*</span>— essentially telling the president to find the resources himself.
USA TODAY
Obama grants 95 Christmastime pardons and commutations
[h=2]Green climate fund[/h]Obama had pledged $3 billion to a United Nations fund intended to help developing countries reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Congress didn't appropriate the money that Obama wanted<span style="color: Red;">*</span>— but it didn't prohibit the spending, either. Instead, Congress simply required that the president account for any money the administration spends<span style="color: Red;">*</span>on climate change initiatives.
That was good enough for the White House.
"Based on what we have reviewed so far, there are no restrictions in our ability to make good on the president’s promise to contribute to the Green Climate Fund," White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said Wednesday.
[h=2]Flood insurance[/h]Congress backed down from threats to<span style="color: Red;">*</span>repeal<span style="color: Red;">*</span>an Obama executive order in January that implemented a new federal flood protection standard. Instead, the language in the spending bill rolls back some provisions but leaves the executive order largely intact and instead encouraged the Obama administration to do a better job of addressing concerns.
"This is a major victory for sound floodplain management and safeguarding our public infrastructure from the increasing threat of flooding due to climate change," the Natural Resources Defense Council's Joel Scata said.
[h=2]Cost of executive action[/h]Frustrated by a lack of information about how much Obama's executive actions cost taxpayers, Congress added a provision last year requiring a report to Congress on the cost of each executive order. The provision's sponsor, Rep. Ander Crenshaw, R-Fla., said Congress deserved to know the financial impact of executive actions.
But many of Obama's most controversial executive actions<span style="color: Red;">*</span>— on guns, immigration or the environment<span style="color: Red;">*</span>— have not been by executive order. Instead, USA TODAY reported last year that<span style="color: Red;">*</span>Obama has made prolific use of presidential memoranda, a directive that political scientists call "an executive order by another name" and are often used to direct agencies to issue new regulations
Congress closed that loophole in the<span style="color: Red;">*</span>2016 spending bill, requiring<span style="color: Red;">*</span>the Office of Management and Budget to submit a budgetary impact statement when the regulatory cost of a presidential memorandum is more than $100 million.
[h=2]Turning executive orders into law[/h]Executive orders are often seen as a way for presidents to go around Congress. But sometimes, Congress actually agrees with executive orders and incorporates them into the laws it passes. Examples in the omnibus include:
•<span style="color: Red;">*</span>Obama signed a presidential memorandum in 2011 requiring all federal fleet vehicles to use alternative fuels beginning in 2016. The spending bill makes that a legal requirement for all "light duty"<span style="color: Red;">*</span>vehicles purchased by the government.
•<span style="color: Red;">*</span>The Energy and Water Development appropriation ratifies an executive order signed by President Clinton on environmental justice in 1994.
•<span style="color: Red;">*</span>Congress explicitly authorizes an emergency communications program the president established<span style="color: Red;">*</span>through a 2012 executive order.
•<span style="color: Red;">*</span>Congress prohibits the use of federal money to purchase goods made with child labor, just as President Clinton did<span style="color: Red;">*</span>in an executive order in 1999.
Powered By WizardRSS.com | Full Text RSS Feed