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.

Tim, if you haven't noticed yet, lots of news media including this one are biased. They fail to realize that their credibility goes down the drain when they do that. They are in love with the power they have, much more so than the truth. Its a very sick game they play with people's heads.

Posted by: RC | Dec 15, 2007 11:14:23 AM

Daniel Onail, you obviously don't keep up with current world affairs. The Clintons are anything BUT a disgrace to this country. Bill Clinton has helped countless numbers of people all over the world with the work he does for people suffering from AIDS and other diseases. The Clintons are loved wordwide for good reason. We as a country would be idiots to not elect Hillary at this time in history. . .then again, we elected GWBush two times. We'll either move forward and in the right direction and elect Hillary or we'll continue punishing ourselves and the rest of the world by electing another GWBush or worse. . . probably worse since that seems to be the pattern.

Posted by: RC | Dec 15, 2007 11:06:45 AM

Hillary is not the most qualified and most electable. Biden, Dodd and Edwards are all more qualified and more electable. Obama would make a great V P.

Posted by: Luke | Dec 15, 2007 11:05:51 AM

I have read as many magazines and newspapers as possible about every candidate in order to learn as much about each one that I possible can.
I have watched and listened to both the Democratic and the Republican debates on television and have been thoroughly disgusted at the “staging” of these debates.
I find that presently the only 2 viable Democratic contestants at this stage are Hilary Clinton and Barrack Obama.
I have come to the conviction that my vote for Clinton would be a vote for the status quo, or “politics as usual”.
The opinion that I have come to is that Obama’s “inexperience” in the political arena might be a plus for the American citizens, whose government is, after all, supposed to be “of the people, by the people and for the people”. And those in office at present with “experience” certainly do not give me the confidence a citizen should have in his government. Washington, Adams and Jefferson never had any experience as presidents either and they didn’t do so badly. They had intelligence, a feel for the people and a great desire and conviction that ALL men are created equal.
I feel that those in the federal government have not been exactly “role models” to lesser State, County, and Local government office holders as all seem to think that “public servants” has turned into a “me first” for all rights and privileges and to hell with the “people” The “haves”, “powerful” and “experienced” have created “outsourcing” to the detriment of Americans. The “haves”, “powerful” and “experienced” have allowed “illegal” immigration to the detriment of Americans citizens. I feel that it is now time for the citizens of the United States to let the government know that it has the power, not those in office. That they sit in office only because we, the people, allow them to do so, and when the majority of the people speak, public officials should listen to us, rather than the lobbyists who put more money in THEIR pockets and take a living wage out of the pockets of the people.

Posted by: Betty Krambs | Dec 15, 2007 10:53:28 AM

The Clintons are a disgrace to this country.
Everyone around them takes the fall and they know nothing about it(not us)
Sandy Berger is a convicted felon yet they say he's just an unofficial member of the team. Scandles abound with this candidate but she didnt know what her campaighners were and are continuing to do. Will she tell us if shes president she didnt know God help the USA

Posted by: Daniel ONeil | Dec 15, 2007 10:43:36 AM

After reading all these comments, I have a couple of things to say. HRC is not the person we need in the White House. If you read the book "Unlimited Acces" by Gary Aldrich and "Target" by Kathleen Willey, you will see why. She also will be just like her husband (I guess he is)in case we are attacked. She won't do nothing; just like he did when the Cole was bombed. That is why 911 happened. I really don't know who I am going to vote for yet, (I do have one in mind)but I need to listen to more of their debates. I know who I am not voting for and that is Clinton, Baden,Romney,Paul,Huckabee,or Edwards. God bless this country to watch over all of us, and God Bless our troops.

Posted by: d1d2e3j4 | Dec 15, 2007 10:36:31 AM

It is so socially accepable at this time for liberals and democrats to express that conservatives and republicans are absolute idiots because of their views or concerns.... what is amazing is that when we attempt to express our opinions we are shouted down or told to shut up... amazing how all of my experience and education is sumed up as being ignorant and stupid... with that said, all I really would like to know is Hillary's resume and practical experience in written form... and any documentation that proves that she has actually achieved these things... no different than of what I have to prove when i am interviewing for a new job.... she and other candidates need and should have the same scrutiny... In my research of her background I have not found anything that is intellectually accepted as "most experienced" in the venue of presidentual candidate.

Posted by: john strickland | Dec 15, 2007 10:25:10 AM

I guess this depends on how you define "pass". No senator passes any bill, it takes 51 senators to do that. Presuming she voted for the bill, then she has just as much right to claim she "passed" it as every other senator who voted for it does. It may have been more accurate to say "we passed it", but that is a matter of semantics.

She never claimed authorship and the man whose language was in the bill, Sen. Akaka, claims that Clinton took the lead on push for this so that certainly gives credence to her claim to have had a role in this being in the bill.

This is way overparsing a statement.

Posted by: nbpolitico | Dec 15, 2007 9:43:31 AM

Here is the kind of woman I'll cast my vote for the office of President. One who like that security officer at the church in Colorado, can immediately identify a deadly threat and meet that deadly threat with her own deadly force without having to consult an opinion poll first. Let's elect a president who makes our ENEMIES WOULD NOT VOTE FOR!

Posted by: GODfearingman | Dec 15, 2007 9:35:35 AM

WE NEED CHANGE; VOTE CLINTON PRESIDENT.

Posted by: ALVIN | Dec 15, 2007 9:33:25 AM

Uh, I don't recall. Um, I don't recall. Duh, I don't recall (repeat over 40 times). Grand Jury Testimony on Record.

Does anyone really think an idiot like her could actually EVER be elected? Let alone run the greatest superpower on earth?

She can't even figure out what's going on under her own nose (Monica) "just a Republican conspiricy". She's an idiot period. Unelectable period. End of story. Duh, I don't recall.

Get a brain Dems.

Posted by: Whataliarsheis | Dec 15, 2007 9:11:50 AM

"Its (sic) time we elected a woman."

Sure. Just not THAT woman.

Posted by: Jack Bauer | Dec 15, 2007 9:06:24 AM

About the only thing Obama supporters can do now is bash Hillary. She's the most electable and qualified so they are all angry that she still holds 2-1 leads in the more populated states. Get over it! Its time we elected a woman. Women had to fight long and hard just to be able to vote in this country. They deserve to have a president and Hillary is the best candidate hands down. She also deserves to be president for all the biased news media that has gone against her and all the Hillary basher attacks she's had to endure for months now. Someone like Obama would run and hide or move out of the country if he was bashed for a fraction of what Hillary has endured. Obama is non electable anyway.

Posted by: RC | Dec 15, 2007 8:48:53 AM

"We are hearing that there is a noticeable sag in Hillarys poll numbers every time she speaks.If she would just not talk, she could win this thing!"

You mean follow the path of the wife of the previous president of Argentina. No press conferences. No debates. Gets voted in to replace husband. Shes a socialist as well.

Look to Hillary to follow this path. The MSM flunkies wil give her a pass.

Posted by: davod | Dec 15, 2007 8:01:41 AM

Stop creating controversy in politics where there isn't any just to get more viewers. This isn't helping the democratic process. Give us real news.

Posted by: Martha.S | Dec 15, 2007 7:43:29 AM

Seeing the Mrs C word has introduced Executive Orders into the debate... I'm wondering will any "journalist" challenge her faulty memory. After all she was so intimately involved with the day to day decisions taken by her husband's administration, maybe some brave soul will dare as her about this...

After all, is she can recall Mr Obama's activities in kindergarten, is it too much to ask she remember what her co-President did a mere eight years ago?


Clinton's Executive Orders
March 8, 2001
President Clinton merely took an existing executive privilege and vastly expanded it to allow him to make laws while sitting in the Oval Office.

For twenty years, President Jimmy Carter held the record for the most number of 11th hour executive orders. Outgoing presidents have been notorious for stepping up their activity in the Oval Office just before they have to turn out the lights. But Jimmy Carter set the bar so high it seemed unlikely that anyone would surpass his record. President Bill Clinton, however, did just that. His flurry of last-minute executive orders broke the Carter record that stood for twenty years.

During his two terms as president, Bill Clinton averaged about one executive order each week. By doing so, he was able to effectively legislate from the Oval Office. He wrote executive orders to set aside large tracts of land as national monuments. He wrote executive orders to restructure federalism. He wrote executive orders adding "sexual orientation" to laws on federal hiring. He wrote executive orders prohibiting federal contractors from hiring permanent striker replacements. In other words, he exercised a legislative function: he made laws.

Posted by: Jack Bauer | Dec 15, 2007 6:53:56 AM

Tim ---"The truth is that Hillary was the first to propose this idea in the Senate. She did so in a bill she introduced on September 6, 2005, just days after Hurricane Katrina. The requirement that the FEMA director be qualified was later incorporated into the 2006 Homeland Security funding bill, which passed the Senate unanimously and became law." ----It is also true that her bills failed (miserably) it wasn't until other members of the Senate rewrote the bills in a platform that could achieve passage that they were actually passed -- so in reality - it was not her bill - she failed to get a bill passed that actually was passed when rewritten by someone with more understanding of haw to get things accomplished within the process -- again I am still waiting for someone to explain to me how she has "experience"

Posted by: givemeabreak | Dec 15, 2007 4:09:08 AM

Ralph --- "And it infuriates you, I know. But the fact of the matter is she is more qualified and she is what the country needs. All you need is to look at the facts objectively and you'll see what the overwhelming number of Democrats are seeing" ---- Why don't you go ahead and state some of these "facts" -- we are all listening....

Posted by: givemeabreak | Dec 15, 2007 4:04:16 AM

I just hate intellectual laziness whenever I see it.

To those who still criticize the Clinton camp for unreleased documents: it's either you are incredibly stupid folks or you don't even bother to educate your ignorance on the subject.

The release of the documents is covered by Federal Law and is under the SOLE dominion of the Presidential Archive. Hillary Clinton and Bill are not stopping the release of the documents. Check factcheck.org for the real score on this issue.

Are Obama supporters all like this?

Posted by: Ralph | Dec 15, 2007 1:18:52 AM

"My goodness, its eye opening to see Hillary's minions dispatched to write comments on a website bolstering her fictions. She must be in high panic regarding her "rightful" assendence to the Oval Office."

It's eye-opening to see Obama's minions trot out Obama talking points and lies as if people with half a brain would actually believe it. You WISH the Hillary camp actually panics.

The fact is, Hillary is still on top and overwhelmingly so. The only way Obama would win Iowa is if he cheats. It will become the Illinois caucus if Obama gets away with it. But even with that, Hillary would still win, with hands tied behind her back.

And it infuriates you, I know. But the fact of the matter is she is more qualified and she is what the country needs. All you need is to look at the facts objectively and you'll see what the overwhelming number of Democrats are seeing. The problem with Obama supporters like the author of this article is that they just won't look at the facts. And it's funny because you are acting like Bush in so many ways and yet you supposedly hate him. Pathetic.

Posted by: Ralph | Dec 15, 2007 1:13:29 AM

Post a comment





 

POLITICAL VIDEOS