Rex Regnant Sed Non Gubernat

Rep. Waxman writes: "If the President signed the Reconciliation Act knowing its constitutional infirmity, he would in effect be placing himself above the Constitution."

The text of the letter follows:

March 15, 2006

The Honorable Andrew Card

Chief of Staff

The
White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue,

NWWashington, 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.
• © Copyright 2006 YubaNet.com