PDA

View Full Version : Bush Balks at Criteria for FEMA Director



Secret Squirrel
10-27-2006, 09:56 AM
Signing Statement Asserts Right to Ignore Parts of New Homeland Security Law


President Bush reserved the right to ignore key changes in Congress's overhaul of the Federal Emergency Management Agency -- including a requirement to appoint someone with experience handling disasters as the agency's head -- in setting aside dozens of provisions contained in a major homeland security spending bill this week.

Besides objecting to Congress's list of qualifications for FEMA's director, the White House also claimed the right to edit or withhold reports to Congress by a watchdog agency within the Department of Homeland Security that is responsible for protecting Americans' personal privacy.

The standards for the FEMA director were inspired by criticism of former FEMA chief Michael D. Brown's performance after Hurricane Katrina last year. Brown, a lawyer and judge of Arabian horses, had no experience in disaster response before joining FEMA.

Bush's moves came in a controversial assertion of executive authority known as a "signing statement," which the White House issued late Wednesday, the same day the president signed the $34.8 billion measure. Congress has assailed the unprecedented extent of Bush's use of signing statements to reinterpret or repudiate measures approved by lawmakers instead of exercising a formal veto.

White House spokesman Tony Fratto said the actions, first reported by the Associated Press, upheld the president's right to choose his advisers and control executive branch activities.

"There's nothing new here. The president has the authority to choose which of his subordinate officers he'll rely on," Fratto said. "The president has the authority to determine what the relationship is between them."

Lawmakers in both parties -- Democrats more harshly than Republicans -- said Bush was ignoring precedent and neglecting lessons of the bungled response to Katrina.

"Amazingly, President Bush continues to show more interest in expanding his executive power than in running the government in a fair, effective and competent manner," said Rep. Martin O. Sabo (Minn.), ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations subcommittee on homeland security.

A spokesman for Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.), who chaired a House Katrina investigation, said the White House is slighting Congress and ignoring the political toll of Brown's incompetence and ties to GOP cronies.

"Davis hopes the White House isn't saying they don't understand the need for minimal qualifications, or that they might bypass them. If indeed they are, then we haven't come very far from the days of 'Heck of a job, Brownie,' " Davis spokesman David Marin said, in a reference to Bush's early praise for Brown. "Good luck getting someone confirmed who doesn't meet these standards."

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), chairman of the Senate's Katrina investigation, said its findings showed that the president needs a principal adviser for emergency management, as he has on military matters in the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Congress sets job requirements for officials from the U.S. solicitor general to the director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, she said. They are comparable to the five years of management experience and demonstrated emergency-management skills it mandated for the head of FEMA, she said. The director also should be allowed to make recommendations directly to Congress, she said, authority that the White House rejected.

"Congress needs a forthright assessment of the state of the nation's preparedness from the FEMA director," Collins said.

The White House also reserved the right to withhold or alter reports of a unit that monitors DHS use of Americans' personal information in background checks, employment screening and air travel, among other things.

Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, warned against muzzling the office, as DHS emerges as "the central hub for the integration" of government databases containing that information.

The DHS Privacy Office's last report to Congress covered activities up to June 2004. DHS spokesman Larry Orluskie said a new report, updated through this June, will be sent to the White House for review in coming days and is expected to be made public in about a week.

link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/06/AR2006100601527.html)

budgie
10-27-2006, 11:33 AM
He won't get as much 'balking' done after the mid terms, I suppose.

2Sheds_Jackson
10-27-2006, 12:25 PM
Not really about the particulars of a FEMA director - it's a simple power struggle between Executive and Legislative. IMHO the Exec should get to nominate whoever the hell he wants - it's why he's in charge. If the Legislative does not like it, they don't confirm the guy, plain and simple. It's an obvious power grab for Congress to tell the head guy who he can or can't nominate.

ElHombre
10-27-2006, 04:57 PM
Not really about the particulars of a FEMA director - it's a simple power struggle between Executive and Legislative. IMHO the Exec should get to nominate whoever the hell he wants - it's why he's in charge. If the Legislative does not like it, they don't confirm the guy, plain and simple. It's an obvious power grab for Congress to tell the head guy who he can or can't nominate.

It's a concept called 'qualified for the job'. Given the track record of this particular President, I don't mind Congress telling El Presidente that he needs to make sure a candidate is qualified for the job before he sends the nomination to Congress. It would save a lot of people time and, as Katrina showed, their lives.

Jobu
10-27-2006, 05:11 PM
It's a concept called 'qualified for the job'. Given the track record of this particular President, I don't mind Congress telling El Presidente that he needs to make sure a candidate is qualified for the job before he sends the nomination to Congress. It would save a lot of people time and, as Katrina showed, their lives.

Bull****. The President (any President) can choose who he/she wishes and the Senate can choose to confirm or not.

The president can waste their time as much as they waste his/hers. For example, sending the President a bill that they know will be vetoed. Is it a waste of time? Yup, but they do it anyway.

Hunterhr
10-27-2006, 05:13 PM
It's a concept called 'qualified for the job'. Given the track record of this particular President, I don't mind Congress telling El Presidente that he needs to make sure a candidate is qualified for the job before he sends the nomination to Congress. It would save a lot of people time and, as Katrina showed, their lives.

If he's not qualified for the job, don't confirm him.

2Sheds_Jackson
10-27-2006, 05:22 PM
It's a concept called 'qualified for the job'. Given the track record of this particular President, I don't mind Congress telling El Presidente that he needs to make sure a candidate is qualified for the job before he sends the nomination to Congress. It would save a lot of people time and, as Katrina showed, their lives.

Did Bush still cause the hurricane itself by failing to ratify Kyoto, or have you at least given up on that one?

The reason why the chief executive, and not Congress, gets to select these posts, is because it falls within their prerogative as to what skills, background, character, etc. are needed for the job. As a check/balance on the process, Congress gets to vote them up/down. Congress is attempting to leapfrog, and control both the initial selection, and the ultimate approval of the candidate - essentially usurping the President's discretion.

You may note that Congress also had the opportunity to vote down Bush's previous selection for FEMA chief, and they did not. Why then are they policing his performance, and not themselves? In addition to a power grab, this is also a nice attempt at deflecting blame in an election year.

California Joe
10-27-2006, 06:02 PM
Pres should be able to pick anyone he wants. But for Chrissakes pick a guy with skills to do the damned job. Like 2 Sheds for instance.

LaoSexMachine
10-27-2006, 06:09 PM
*sigh* No big deal. Bush haters will try anything.

California Joe
10-27-2006, 06:13 PM
*Mr. Howell voice* You're right Zeke, only people in Skull and Bones should be considered, except that Kerry fellow. Never liked him. :)

LaoSexMachine
10-27-2006, 06:17 PM
This is nothing more then partisan politics.

tyovan
10-27-2006, 06:25 PM
What the hell is up with all these signing statements he has been issuing?

America doesn't need another King George!!!

2Sheds_Jackson
10-27-2006, 06:51 PM
Pres should be able to pick anyone he wants. But for Chrissakes pick a guy with skills to do the damned job. Like 2 Sheds for instance.

I'd be terrible at it. I'm more likely to cause a small scale emergency than to fix one. Pubic safety officials have responded to me on several occasions, but, you know the wrong way.

It's just a very political move, that beyond being cheesy, doesn't even make sense to me. The way I look at it, the head guy at FEMA will be doing exactly 0 disaster planning. The guy at the top of these federal agencies needs to be a diplomat, an accountant, a lobbyist, and a leader. The head of Motorola can't sit down and design an IC chip with integrated bluetooth. The head of Nissan can't design an engine. And if the f*ckin' head of FEMA is the one who's personally directing their actions during an emergency - the system has irreparably failed. There are legions of upper and middle managers who are paid to be highly experienced in their field, to do it every day, to be in the trenches - and to have plans ready to execute.

Jobu
10-27-2006, 08:48 PM
What the hell is up with all these signing statements he has been issuing?

America doesn't need another King George!!!

When a bill passes in both houses of congress and goes to the President's desk it is often something that may now or in the future conflict with the rights of the executive office. A signing statement just makes it clear that he is passing the law but refusing to weaken the office of the President in doing so. Not just for himself but for future Presidents who will have to govern under the same rules.

Basically it's a power-grab by Congress.

tyovan
10-27-2006, 08:50 PM
No, basically its a power grab by Bush..

Jobu
10-27-2006, 08:51 PM
No, basically its a power grab by Bush..

How is it a power grab by Bush if his office already has the power?

California Joe
10-27-2006, 09:55 PM
I'd be terrible at it. I'm more likely to cause a small scale emergency than to fix one. Pubic safety officials have responded to me on several occasions, but, you know the wrong way.

It's just a very political move, that beyond being cheesy, doesn't even make sense to me. The way I look at it, the head guy at FEMA will be doing exactly 0 disaster planning. The guy at the top of these federal agencies needs to be a diplomat, an accountant, a lobbyist, and a leader. The head of Motorola can't sit down and design an IC chip with integrated bluetooth. The head of Nissan can't design an engine. And if the f*ckin' head of FEMA is the one who's personally directing their actions during an emergency - the system has irreparably failed. There are legions of upper and middle managers who are paid to be highly experienced in their field, to do it every day, to be in the trenches - and to have plans ready to execute.

You are right. I worked for the DoD long enough to know that. That's what I meant when I said the skills to do the damned job. A seriously competent manager that can make it happen.

Satellite Weapon
10-28-2006, 04:25 PM
Ex-FEMA chief: Avoid crisis mismanagement
http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_4551166
http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/9489/brownhorseer4.jpg

XShipRider
10-29-2006, 01:31 PM
Better idea: Eliminate this bureaucratic nightmare called FEMA.

I don't care what the qualifications are. The bureaucracy is the problem,
not the person in charge. Get rid of this layer by having Congress
appropriate funds directly to the states and localities affected by
disaster.

Limeyfellow
10-29-2006, 01:48 PM
Better idea: Eliminate this bureaucratic nightmare called FEMA.

I don't care what the qualifications are. The bureaucracy is the problem,
not the person in charge. Get rid of this layer by having Congress
appropriate funds directly to the states and localities affected by
disaster.

Fema worked excellently in 1993 when it had decent management that had experience in disasters and decent funding. It was left to rot in the 80s and up to 1992 which is what caused alot of problems and in 1999 had its funding cut and a bunch of people in charge with no disaster management skills. We saw it used very effectively in 1993 with the massive flooding of the Mississippi River.

After Katrina Bush promised a skilled manager with experience in disaster relief would take over fema but when he was called on it he throws a hissy fit since apparently none of his buddies were eligible and made a laughing stock out of things.