Home > Politics > Political Punch
Political Punch
Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper

« Previous | Main | Next »

Clinton Claims Credit for Bill She Didn't Pass

December 14, 2007 2:37 PM

One of the knocks on Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, by her opponents is that she takes credit for things she shouldn't -- say, the myriad successes of her husband's administration (and few of its failures).

Those inclined to wonder about this quality may have gotten more fuel for the fire yesterday.

During yesterday's Des Moines Register debate, the moderator asked Clinton: "As president, would you use signing statements to assert that certain acts of Congress conflict with your interpretation of the Constitution and your obligation to enforce those laws?"

The senator responded: "I would use them the way presidents before this president used them. They were used to clarify the law to perhaps make it more coherent with other laws that have been passed. And along came President Bush. He's used them as essentially a form of veto. He did it through a piece of legislation I passed, where it was pretty simple. I said: If you're going to have a FEMA director, it should be somebody with experience handling emergencies ... we actually had to pass it through the Congress. And when George Bush signed the bill it was part of, he specifically used a signing statement to say, 'I don't have to follow that, unless I choose to."

But knowledgeable Senate sources say that is not what happened. Clinton never "passed" the legislation to do this.

It's true that the 2006 Homeland Security Bill contained a provision to require that the FEMA director have expertise beyond Arabian horses. 

And it's true that in October 2006, Bush issued a signing statement taking issue with that part of the bill, writing that that provision "purports to limit the qualifications of the pool of persons from whom the president may select the appointee in a manner that rules out a large portion of those persons best qualified by experience and knowledge to fill the office."

But did Clinton "pass" this provision?  How much can she credibly claim credit for it?

Myriad knowledgeable Senate sources say she did not pass this provision, and she cannot claim credit for any of it.  She's not on the Senate Homeland Security Committee, for one.

In September 2005, shortly after Hurricane Katrina, Clinton introduced a bill (S 1615) that among other things would have required "The Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency shall have significant experience, knowledge, training, and expertise in the area of emergency preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation as related to natural disasters and other national cataclysmic events."

The bill would also have established FEMA as its own Cabinet-level agency.

That bill went nowhere.

In November 2005, Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii, a member of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, introduced "The Department of Homeland Security Qualified Leaders Act" which would have required top officials of the Department of Homeland Security have "(A) at least 5 years of executive leadership and management experience in the public or private sector; (B) at least 5 years of significant experience in a field relevant to the position for which the individual is nominated."

Akaka's bill, too, went nowhere.

In May 2006, Clinton introduced a bill (S. 1427) containing the same language as her previous one. On July 11, 2006, Clinton's bill failed overwhelmingly -- by a vote of 32 to 66.

Meanwhile, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee -- led by then-Chair Susan Collins, R-Maine, ranking non-Republican Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and Akaka -- was holding dozens of hearings and had long been working on a  FEMA overhaul bill that included a provision that the FEMA administrator have experience in emergency management and homeland security and at least five years of executive leadership.

That provision was always in the bill as Collins, Lieberman, and Akaka wrangled over the details.

What finally passed out of committee was based on Akaka's November 2005 bill, "The Department of Homeland Security Qualified Leaders Act." The committee's bill required that the FEMA "Administrator shall be appointed from among individuals who have -- (A) a demonstrated ability in and knowledge of emergency management and homeland security; and  (B) not less than 5 years of executive leadership and management experience in the public or private sector."

When the conference committee bill -- HR 2360 -- was set to pass the House and Senate in September 2006 as part of the $34 billion Department of Homeland Security spending bill, Lieberman said that it contained a number of provisions that he and Collins "recommended following their eight-month investigation into the failed federal preparations for and response to the deadly August 2005 hurricane," including one stating that "the administrator and other top regional officials would be required to have emergency management experience."

Clinton's claim that she "passed" this legislation met with strong protest on Capitol Hill today.

"What Senator Clinton said is absolutely absurd," said one knowledgeable Senate source who was involved in the drafting of the legislation but didn't want Clinton angry with the source's boss. "She hasn't been a huge player in FEMA reform at all."

The Clinton folks disagree.

Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines says, "After Hurricane Katrina, Senator Clinton was at the forefront of championing two proposals: 1) Restoring FEMA to its independent, cabinet-level status, and 2) Requiring that the FEMA Director possess the proper emergency management qualifications in order to hold that position. Senator Clinton's proposal, which she is proud of, passed the Congress and became law (FY07 DHS Approps).  Then, as she said yesterday, President Bush issued a signing statement essentially vetoing the provision."

"That's not true," says the source when told of Reines' account.

Clinton forces originally said her language was incorporated into the Homeland Security bill. They backed off that claim after it was pointed out that it wasn't.

Then they started saying she deserved credit for the idea. But Hill sources say the notion was pretty obvious to anyone who didn't think Brownie did a "heckuva job" that expertise was direly needed in the head of that agency.

"A piece of legislation I passed" ? A very questionable claim.

- jpt

NOTE: This post has been updated, at the request of Clinton's Senate office, to replace the word "challenging" with "championing" in Philippe Reines' statement above.

UPDATE: Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-NJ, writes to say that Clinton's advocacy on the subject should not be discounted. "Following Katrina, Senator Clinton was the most forceful advocate on the Senate floor for competence and independence at FEMA," he writes. "As a former member of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, which oversaw FEMA and DHS, I was happy to see her long-standing idea to improve the FEMA Director’s qualifications become law. Unfortunately, President Bush ignored her reforms with his signing statement.”

UPDATE #2: Sen. Akaka writes that "Senator Clinton was the first Senator to offer legislation that required subject matter expertise. My views on this issue were informed by her earlier legislative ideas.   ...While I am not endorsing a candidate in the primary, I want to set the record straight on this matter.  Senator Clinton deserves applause for her efforts."

Boy, I had no idea so many Senators read Political Punch! (Your tax dollars at work.) I thought I made it clear that Sen. Clinton had the idea early on -- that what seemed questionable is that she referred to that provision in the Homeland Security legislation as "a piece of legislation I passed" since she didn't pass it and didn't write it.

December 14, 2007 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (106)

User Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

This is fantastic! The MSM has made MILLIONS mis-quoting the Clintons.
Now, Jake Tapper has been called to the carpet by legislators themselves... and CORRECTED.
Are you proud of this level of "journalism," Jake?
-----
re: "Please post 1 qualification Hillary Clinton has to be President!
Being First Lady doesn't count!"
Posted by: reaganfan | Dec 17, 2007 12:42:48 AM

Hey, reaganfan, you are a typical Republican. You demand ONE qualification, and then try to define the friggin' "unacceptable" qualifications yourself.
LOL!

How's THIS for ONE Clinton qualification:

I support Senator Clinton because idiots like you don't.

Posted by: Jan | Dec 21, 2007 1:30:00 PM

Alot of Negative comments about Hillary this cycle were generated by Chris Matthews. He may know alot about alot of things. One of them is to throw a bucket of slop out there to see what sticks the most. Since we have seen all the candidates have something in their pasts, accentuating the negatives works in Chris Matthews favor. It is after all his bread and butter. He threw it out there that a disruntled liberal was behind all those church burnings in the South. That didn't pan out for him. So what he puts out there about Hillary should be taken with a grain of salt. Also,you don't have to like Hillary to vote for her, but she does have a record to look at. People voted for Bush coz they could have a beer with him,how's that working for our country? And one more thing Democrats don't attack others like the other side. Some of you Republican snipers better check your heads, your roots are showing.

Posted by: shaamex | Dec 18, 2007 6:57:33 AM

All of you Hillary supporters keep talking about her qualifications to be President and say that she is the most
qualified Democrat to be President!
Please post 1 qualification Hillary Clinton has to be President!
Being First Lady doesn't count!
There is no major piece of legislation with her name on it!

Posted by: reaganfan | Dec 17, 2007 12:42:48 AM

hey bill, insetead of putting your wife out there for us, could you afford us the same luxury you afforded yourself and push for monica lewinski to become president? i mean, if you dont even want your own wife, and she isnt doing it for you anymore, why are you wishing her on us?

Posted by: hillaryisayuckface | Dec 16, 2007 4:15:09 PM

Well this just makes me sad.

You didn't even pay lip service to the subject matter of the question. That is, the use of signing statements. Because Clinton's answer is thoughtful and probative.

Instead, you try to paint Clinton as a fraud. And obviously, you didn't do your research.

Then, you take a swipe at the people who wrote in in Clinton's defense. Taxpayer dollars at work? How about my ad dollars at work? You work for free Jake? I didn't think so. Please do a better job. More substance, less unsubstantiated innuendo, please.

Posted by: cordelia525 | Dec 16, 2007 3:21:59 PM

Once again, Hillary will only divide this nation. She just doesn't have the leadership capabilities to inspire this country. The reason that Obama is rising in the polls is that he has the charisma to inspire others. Honestly, the only way the Democrats can loose the presidential race is to nominate Hillary.

Posted by: Sam | Dec 16, 2007 10:23:00 AM

Alvin - First, Clinton's healthcare program was introduced in the 90's and was a total and unworkable failure. Most in congress recognized it to be far to expensive to ever succeed. An economy breaker... She has NO plan for the decifit which was not created by Bush. the deficit has been around (and growing) since before Carter. And yes it even grew under Clinton (by almost 3 trillion dollars. She also has not provided an exact explaination on how she will handle the issue of troops in the middle east. As far as her being a "proven leader" - She failed to fix public education in Arkansas - in fact, it got much worse while she was trying to "fix" it. She has not plan for the comming Social Security crisis. She voted for the war in Iraq then called it Bush's "Lie"... Read, listen, think for yourself, and I think you will see the reality. She is NOT what we need.

Posted by: givemeabreak | Dec 16, 2007 8:58:28 AM

bronxboy- "Think about it. Which candidnt will have the strength!!! to Kick A in the US and Rebuild the Damaged rep. of the US around the World! Name the Republican or Democrat and we'll debate..." Are you serious? Rebuild our damaged rep?? She stole money in Arkansas, failed at improving our schools, was complicant in Vince Fosters death, called out her attach dogs on anyone who tried to sully Bill (Jennifer, Kathlene, Paula..et al) and made sure they were completly destroyed. She failed at Healthcare, fail to pass any major legislation as a Senator, and since running for pres has been embroiled in one scandal after another (planting questions, having her minions slur the other candidates then fall on their sword for her, a $300,000 + illegal fund raising scandal in chinatown that no one will even talk about, the HSU incident, won't release her white house coorispondance, flip flops on Iraq, won't talk to reporters)... yeah I'm sure she will restore everyone's faith in the US.....

Posted by: givemeabreak | Dec 16, 2007 8:48:09 AM

SENITOR CLINTON, IS A PROVEN LEADER A CANIDATE THAT HAS COMPASION AND UNDERSTANDING OF THE POOR, MIDDEL CLASS AND PEOPLE IN GENERIAL. SHE HAS PERPOSEED A VERY GOOD HEALTH CARE PROGLEM A VERY GOOD SULUTION ON GETTING THE TROUPES HOME, SHE KNOWS BEST HOW TO TURN THE DEFFICE AROUND IN WHICH PRESIDENT BUSH HAS CREATED, WHICH HAPTENS TO BE BAD FOR THE U.S OF A.. SO THANK ABOUT IT AND I'M SURE YOU BE FOR SENITER CLINTON FOR PRESIDENT WHEN IT COMES TIME TO VOTE THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME VOTE CLINTON 2008:

Posted by: ALVIN | Dec 16, 2007 8:46:48 AM

The only reason why Obama went with the "politics of change" and the "politics of hope" is that he hasn't accomplished anything. Whenever I hear it from them, I usually translate it as the "politics of non-achievement".

He has done NOTHING. He is the least qualified candidate since World War II.

Posted by: Ralph | Dec 16, 2007 8:45:53 AM

Mr Hakes - "Jim Rod - that's swell, but every single one of the Swift Vet's claims against Kerry were proven false. Stop spreading lies and dishonoring the service of another Vet for partisan purposes.. You're a disgrace to the uniform." Sorry to say this sir, but that is simply not true - you are the ones spreading the lies now. But I won't call you or anyone else a disgrace to the uniform.. not even Kerry. But sir, It is a fact that he came home on a purple heart that he wrote himself. The medical record for the injury (not combat related) is a matter of record. His testimony before congress about atrocities he witnessed were proven false. Because he wasn't there. he spoke of being in Cambodia during Christmas, but then wrote in his own biography that he was on R/R at that time. Wake up sir - partisanship is clouding your judgement.

Posted by: givemeabreak | Dec 16, 2007 8:35:51 AM

Wanna know how the first caucuses and primaries will affect the outcome? Its in how many people who are supporting hillary now actually know anything about her. How many of them are just "going along" with who they perceive to be the strongest.Those are the ones who dont rely on their own intellect but rely on following the crowd who will switch to Obama.

Posted by: jiffypeanutbutter | Dec 15, 2007 11:23:38 PM


The Homeland Security Qualified Act bill was the work of clinton. For me, I will give her credit for it because she was the one that introduced the aforementioned bill after Hurricane Katrina.
Presumbly,it failed due to other in the Senate don't want for her to take the credit especially Republicans.

Let be realistic, the wordings in the AKaka' bill almost the same of the bill that Hillary wrote. Why the Homeland Security Committee members couldn't come out with a bill after Katrina, but after Hillary.

More to this,i am of the conviction, that they used hillary's work to take the credit. This is plagiarism.
Before I leave, I am pleased to acknowledge the media especially, Cnn, ABC, NBC and CBS are carrying on yellow journalism against Hillary. WE don't hear and read negative artices against Obama, despite , all the errors he made and continues to make politically. These are some of the reasons,I always tune to international channels because i don't get any educative materials local channels.

Posted by: Edwin | Dec 15, 2007 8:13:58 PM

Enough talk--lets go with somebody that does the walk! His name is Ron Paul and 100% constitutional. Are any of the rest of the wannabees? What--you don't like the Constitution of the United States?

Is that not the document they all swear to defend against all threats FOREIGHN and DOMESTIC then forget they took the oath when they step off the stage. Is that not discribing all the rest that have sworn this oath? These are the people running for the President of the United States--You really believe any of them???

Posted by: Dino | Dec 15, 2007 7:48:19 PM

What part of the Constitution is so hard to understand? A fourth grade education is all that is required!

You need a degree in colledge to turn it upside down and make it something it never was and sell it to a dumed down American.

Twenty plus years we have a man running for president in 2008 that has lived up to his sworn oath to the Constitution of the United States of America and no-body mentions him.

If we are to elect people to the greatest nation in the world we need leaders of trust--not partys or celebraties.

Ron Paul is the only candidate that has followed his oath of office and has 100%
constitutional voting record for twenty years in congress.

You don't have to wonder if he is muslem--you don't have to worry about the white house furnitutre--you don't have to wonder about or boarders--you don't have to worry about the money shrinking that is in your wallet--because he knows that the greatest threat is, not Iran or N. Korea.

It is the fraudulent Federal Reserve printing money with no oversite and nothing backing the money they print.

It is not federal and nothing about it is American. They have financed both sides of any war we have been in since 1913. They are a private banking cartel.

For almost 100 years Americans have lived under something that should never have happened--Congress giving up its duty to coin our money and back it with Gold and silver. There is no way they can transfer that responsability to private bankers> Wake up!!! You are slaves to the people who print your worthless money for you __Against the constitution mandate that Congress is the only body that can do that unless there is a amendment to the Constitution.

The Congress and senate know this--the president knows this--as Americans do we know this? Have we no place on the internet to find the Constitution so we can read the Constitution Of The United States of Amerrica and decide for ourselves? Are we really that lazy???

I hope we are not because freedom hinges on this election. It is not a game--voting is every Americans duty to be informed and get the best America has to offer--not what they place in front of you to pick from--a party or what they offer you at the expense of other Americans that will be billed for it later.

Posted by: Dino | Dec 15, 2007 7:33:45 PM

You can send all your false accusations and complaints to her personally at the White House once she is elected and becomes your president. Don't forget to correctly address your false accusations to Madame President.

Posted by: RC | Dec 15, 2007 6:45:34 PM

Has anyone realized just yet that this version of Clinton is no different than the first one who is duly noted as a convicted liar?

Posted by: johhny boy | Dec 15, 2007 3:33:56 PM

I don't understand what all the hub-ub is about. We all know what President Bill Clinton did, I mean we got two for the price of one didn't we? What a pair of liers they are. I have never seen a president with so many people who died, mostly suicides so they say. Beleive there were over 40 or so befoe they took the office futniture and messed up all the computers in the white house before they left town. Good people why don't we repeat our mistake again? She didn't get all she wanted out of the white house yet!

Posted by: Roy Simmons | Dec 15, 2007 2:43:49 PM

Fool Me once, shame on you - fool me twice, shame on me - No, Hill, not this time, sweetie - bless your heart.

Posted by: MickeyButane | Dec 15, 2007 1:30:06 PM

I can't wait until Hillary is President (cackle, cackle). I trust her completely. I live to listen to her tell me what she is going to do with the mess this country is in and I am so excited to be living in this moment when a woman will change the dynamics of the oval office and run you idiots in circles. Hooray!!!! Hooray!!!!

Posted by: Kathy | Dec 15, 2007 11:29:30 AM

Next Comments »

Post a comment





 

POLITICAL VIDEOS