[ED'S NOTE: THERE WERE TWO SIGNING STATEMENTS
FOR H.J. RES. 2, THE OMNIBUS APPROPRIATIONS BILL]

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
February 20, 2003

Statement by the President
[2003-01a] --  39 WCPD 227 (February 24, 2003)
 

Today I Signed Into Law H.j. Res. 2, An Omnibus Appropriations Bill funding the remaining 11 appropriations bills for FY 2003. The funds provided in this resolution will provide important and long overdue resources for our Nations priorities, including fighting the war on terrorism and educating our most vulnerable children.

This bill provides over $397 billion in discretionary budget authority, including $10 billion in reserve funding for the Department of Defense, and is largely consistent with the agreed upon overall funding level. My original budget request, made a year ago, asked for the War on Terror reserve. I had separately agreed to endorse new funds for election reform, a bill that was passed months after my budget was submitted.

Unfortunately, the Congress chose to circumvent the spending limit for FY 2003 by borrowing $2.2 billion in funding from FY 2004. This action must be corrected by adjusting both the 2004 budget allocations and appropriations, and holding advance appropriations constant with the level enacted last year. I will ask the Leadership to ensure this happens.

This bill allocates over $53 billion in total Education funding. The Congress provided increases for many of my high-priority programs, including programs for reading, disadvantaged students, special education, and Pell Grants.

The bill also includes $3.3 billion in unrequested drought and other assistance, which is only minimally offset by real reductions in existing farm spending. Ninety-five percent of purported savings are scheduled to come several years from now, after the expiration of todays farm bill, and may prove illusory.

Most troublesome, H.J. Res. 2 falls nearly $1 billion short of my request for State and local law enforcement and emergency personnel, and in particular underfunds terrorism preparedness for first responders. I requested $3.5 billion for the First Responders Initiative. The bill, however, provides only $1.3 billion for this purpose. Meanwhile the bill provides $2.2 billion for existing State and local grant programs, which are not directly related to higher-priority terrorism preparedness and prevention efforts. This is unsatisfactory, and my Administration will use every appropriate tool available to ensure that these funds are directed to the highest priority homeland security needs.

This belated agreement to last years appropriations process is not perfect, but it underscores the need to move quickly on this years priorities outlined in my 2004 budget request. I look forward to working with the Congress to continue funding the war on terror, strengthening our economy, and protecting the homeland.

GEORGE W. BUSH

►[This signing statement is also found at:]
[link to document at www.whitehouse.gov]
[plain text at GPO]
[PDF from GPO]
 

Statement by the President
February 20, 2003
[2003-01b] --  39 WCPD 225 (February 24, 2003)
 

Today I have signed into law H.J. Res. 2, the ``Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003,'' which contains the remaining 11 annual appropriations acts for fiscal year 2003. The funds appropriated by this bill will provide valuable resources for priorities such as homeland security, military operations, and education.

I am very concerned that the Congress failed to provide over $1 billion in funds that my Administration requested for State and local law enforcement and emergency personnel, and that much of the funding that the Congress did provide is heavily earmarked for lower-priority programs that are not best designed to protect Americans against terrorism. As a result, the shortfall for homeland security First Responder programs is more than $2.2 billion. Funds that should have been made available to the Department of Homeland Security are being diverted to programs unrelated to higher-priority terrorism preparedness and prevention efforts. My Administration will use all the tools at its disposal to ensure that as much of this funding as possible is directed toward terrorism preparedness and prevention.

Further, although the funding level in the bill is largely consistent with the agreed upon top line level that I urged the Congress to adopt, the bill is not fully consistent with the agreed upon non-defense discretionary funding levels due to the expanded use of budgetary mechanisms, such as advance appropriations. This bill includes an increase in advance appropriations of $2.2 billion, which should not be used to evade top line agreements on total discretionary funding.Therefore, the FY 2004 congressional budget allocations should be reduced accordingly and the device should not be repeated in FY 2005.

Finally, the bill includes $3.3 billion for unrequested drought aid and other assistance that is only partially offset by spending reductions in
the recently enacted Farm Bill.

In addition, a number of provisions of H.J. Res. 2 are inconsistent with the constitutional authority of the President to conduct foreign affairs, command the Armed Forces, supervise the unitary executive branch, protect sensitive information, and make recommendations to the Congress. Other provisions unconstitutionally condition execution of the laws by the executive branch upon approval by congressional committees.

Thus, the executive branch shall construe as advisory the provisions of the bill that purport to: direct or burden the Executive's conduct of international negotiations, such as sections 514, 556, 576, and 577 in the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act; 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 609 of the Commerce Appropriations Act; or limit the President's authority to supervise the unitary executive branch, such as section 718 of the Agriculture Appropriations Act and the provisions relating to Office of Management and Budget review of executive branch orders, activities, regulations, transcripts and testimony in the Treasury Appropriations Act.

In addition, the executive branch shall construe provisions that mandate, regulate, or prohibit submission of information to the Congress or the public, such as sections 561(a), 568(a), and 574(d) of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act and sections 620 and 622 of the Treasury Appropriations Act, in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to withhold information that could impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive, or the performance of the Executive's constitutional duties. Also, the executive branch shall construe provisions that mandate or prohibit submission of recommendations to the Congress, such as section 723 of the Agriculture Appropriations Act and the provisions purporting to require submission of a request for a supplemental appropriation in the Interior Appropriations Act, in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to submit for congressional consideration such measures as the President judges necessary and
expedient.

Also, the executive branch shall construe as advisory, or as calling solely for notification, the provisions of this bill that purport to require congressional committee approval for the execution of a law. Any other construction would be inconsistent with the principles enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in INS v. Chadha. Such provisions include: provisions relating to the ``Working Capital Fund,'' Food and Drug Administration fund transfers, and sections 704 and 719 relating to fund transfers in the Agriculture Appropriations Act; the provision relating to an expenditure plan for the entry-exit system in the Commerce Appropriations Act; and the provisions on transfer of United States Customs Service aircraft, automated commercial environment, business systems modernization, funds transfers within and among Treasury entities, Secret Service protective mission travel, museum construction, high-intensity drug trafficking area and other funding levels, building prospectus funding levels, use of the Federal building fund for emergency repairs and transfers with the fund, unobligated balances for salaries and expenses, office improvements, and law enforcement training facilities in the Treasury Appropriations Act.

Furthermore, the duty of the President under section 586 of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act to issue and provide copies of an order relating to consideration of the release of information is assigned to the Attorney General, who shall ensure that the section is implemented in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to withhold information, the disclosure of which could impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive, or the performance of the Executive's constitutional duties.

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
April 23, 2003

Statement by the President
[2003-02] --  39 WCPD 460 (April 28, 2003)
 

Today I have signed into law S. 380, the Postal Civil Service Retirement System Funding Reform Act of 2003. The Act reforms the funding of benefits under the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) for employees of the United States Postal Service.

Under the Appointments Clause of the Constitution, including as construed by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1997 in Edmond v. United States, statutory authority to make decisions for the United States that are final must be exercised by, or subject to the control of, a principal officer of the United States. Sections 2(c) and 3(b) of the Act vest in certain circumstances in the CSRS Board of Actuaries (Board) authority to reconsider, review, and make adjustments with finality in certain determinations, redeterminations, and computations made by the Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). Yet, Board members are not principal officers because they have not been appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, as the Appointments Clause requires. They have instead been appointed by the Director of OPM in accordance with law. Moreover, the Board is not subject to the control of a principal officer in conducting the review, reconsideration, and adjustments for which sections 2(c) and 3(b) of the Act provide, because those sections make such Board action final. Accordingly, to the extent that sections 2(c) and 3(b) make the actions of the Board under those sections final, they are inconsistent with the Appointments Clause.

The Director of OPM shall prepare forthwith for submission to the Congress recommended legislation to conform statutes related to the CSRS Board of Actuaries to the Appointments Clause. While awaiting enactment of corrective legislation, I instruct the Director of OPM, who is a principal officer, to receive any results of reconsideration, review, or adjustments by the Board under sections 2(c) and 3(b) of the Act as advice and opinion for the Director's approval, modification, or disapproval. This instruction gives the fullest effect to the Act that is consistent with the Appointments Clause.

Sections 2(e)(1), 3(e)(1), and 3(f)(1)(B) of the Act purport to require officials in the executive branch to submit recommendations to the Congress or an agent of the Congress. The executive branch shall construe such provisions in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to submit for the consideration of the Congress such measures as the President judges necessary and expedient.

GEORGE W. BUSH
THE WHITE HOUSE,
April 23, 2003.

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
April 25, 2003

Statement by the President
[2003-03] --  39 WCPD 491 (May 5, 2003)
 

I have today signed into law H.R. 1584, the "Clean Diamond Trade Act." The Act enables this Nation to implement procedures developed by more than 50 countries to exclude rough "conflict diamonds" from international trade, while promoting legitimate trade. Conflict diamonds have been used by rebel groups in Africa to finance their atrocities committed on civilian popula-tions and their insurrections against internationally recognized governments. The United States has played a key role over the past 2 years in forging an international consensus to curb such damaging trade and has therefore strongly supported the "Kimberley Process." Diamonds also are critical to the economic growth and development of African and other countries, so preserving their legitimate trade is an important foreign policy objective.

This Act directs the President to implement regulations to carry out the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme (KPCS). Although under this Act I have discretion to issue regulations consistent with future changes to the KPCS, under the Constitution, the President cannot be bound to accept or follow changes that might be made to the KPCS at some future date absent subsequent legislation. I will construe this Act accordingly.

Section 15 of the Act provides that the legislation takes effect on the date the President certifies to the Congress that either of two specified events has occurred. The first event is that "an applicable waiver that has been granted by the World Trade Organization is in effect." The second event is that "an applicable decision in a resolution adopted by the United Nations Security Council pursuant to Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations is in effect." Once the Act takes effect, it "shall thereafter remain in effect during those periods in which, as certified by the President to the Congress, an applicable waiver or decision" by the World Trade Organization or the United Nations Security Council, respectively, "is in effect."

If section 15 imposed a mandatory duty on the President to certify to the Congress whether either of the two specified events has occurred and whether either remains in effect, a serious question would exist as to whether section 15 unconstitutionally delegated legislative power to international bodies. In order to avoid this constitutional question, I will construe the certification process set forth in section 15 as conferring broad discretion on the President. Specifically, I will construe section 15 as giving the President broad discretion whether to certify to the Congress that an applicable waiver or decision is in effect. Similarly, I will construe section 15 as imposing no obligation on the President to withdraw an existing certification in response to any particular event. Rather, I will construe section 15 as giving the President the discretion to determine when a certification that an applicable waiver or decision is no longer in effect is warranted.

GEORGE W. BUSH
THE WHITE HOUSE,
April 25, 2003.

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
April 30, 2003