Posted on 03/24/2018 1:38:46 PM PDT by Islander7
Full Title: Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate
Budget & Spending
Issued on: March 23, 2018
Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)
In accordance with section 7058(d) of division K of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (H.R. 1625; the “Act”), I hereby designate as an emergency requirement all funding so designated by the Congress in the Act pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, for the accounts referenced in section 7058(d).
The details of this action are set forth in the enclosed memorandum from the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
Sincerely,
DONALD J. TRUMP
The Omnibus Act is an appropriations act. It’s multiple appropriations wrapped up into one bill instead of 12. There have been 10 since 1985.
Here is the wiki article. I knew Trump had something up his sleeve.
The term “budget sequestration” was first used to describe a section of the Gramm–Rudman–Hollings Deficit Reduction Act of 1985.
The Acts aimed to cut the United States federal budget deficit, which at the time, in dollar terms, was the largest in history. The Acts provided for automatic spending cuts (”cancellation of budgetary resources”, called “sequestration”) if the total discretionary appropriations in various categories exceed in a fiscal year the budget spending thresholds.[4] That is, if Congress enacts appropriation bills providing for discretionary outlays in each fiscal year that exceed the budget totals, unless Congress passes another budget resolution increasing the budget amount, an across-the-board spending cut in discretionary expenditure is automatically triggered on these categories, affecting all departments and programs by an equal percentage. The amount exceeding the limit is held back by the Treasury and not transferred to the agencies specified in the appropriation bills.[5]
Under the 1985 Act, allowable deficit levels were calculated for the eventual elimination of the federal deficit. If the budget exceeded the allowable deficit, across-the-board cuts were required. Directors of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) were required to report to the Comptroller General regarding their recommendations for how much must be cut. The Comptroller General then evaluated these reports, made his own conclusion, and gave a recommendation to the President, who was then required to issue an order effecting the reductions required by the Comptroller General unless Congress made the required cuts by other ways within a specified amount of time.
The Comptroller General is nominated by the President from a list of three people recommended by the presiding officers of the House and Senate. He is removable only by impeachment or a joint resolution of Congress, which requires majority votes in both houses and is subject to a Presidential veto. Congress can give a number of reasons for this removal, including “inefficiency,” “neglect of duty,” or “malfeasance.”
Thank you, you are right. Refers to Haiti.
What are Omni funds? Is tha like a Dodge Omni?
Not sure about that. The letter references only 7058(d)of the omnibus bill. That part is quoted in post 10. 145 million.
Since we know terrorists are leaking across the southern border, one could reason that the construction of a border wall is part of the war on terror.
Corsi was alluding to this today.
FAIR WARNING: THIS week's column is a deep dive into the inner workings of the House of Representatives. When you kick that rock over, goodness knows what will skitter out. In this case, it reveals some unsavory shenanigans to funnel money to President Donald Trump's proposed border wall.
If you're for the wall, you're thinking, "Good! We should be spending taxpayer dollars to keep illegal immigrants out of the country." But, if I told you the money was going to come from the Pentagon budget, would that still make sense to you?
Federal military troops are forbidden to engage in law enforcement actions – such as enforcing immigration law – by the long-standing posse comitatus prohibitions. (The National Guard is a different case, since its members are under the partial control of their state governors.) The federal agencies charged with protecting U.S. borders and enforcing immigration laws, like the Coast Guard and the Border Patrol, are in the Department of Homeland Security. And the president's budget request for fiscal year 2018 includes just over $44 billion for the department.
So, again, I ask, why should the Pentagon be asked to pay for a border wall? It seems to be a testament to the famous reason Willie Sutton gave for robbing banks: "Because that's where the money is." The Pentagon, with a total proposed budget of $639 billion ($574 in base budget and $65 billion in special "war" accounts), is where lawmakers can find the money for just about anything.
But the House Armed Services Committee version of the annual Pentagon policy bill included a common-sense provision to make sure the Pentagon isn't tasked with paying for the wall: "Section 1039. Rule of construction regarding use of Department of Defense funding of a border wall. None of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this act or otherwise made available for the fiscal year 2018 for the Department of Defense may be used to plan, develop or construct any barriers, including walls or fences, along the international border of the United States."
A careful reading of this language (and that's what we do at Taxpayers for Common Sense) points out this is a fairly broad prohibition. The armed services committees don't ultimately control how federal dollars are spent. The Constitution preserves that role for the appropriations committees. But by saying "or otherwise made available … for the Department of Defense," the House Armed Services Committee was foreclosing the possibility of spending any Pentagon money on this wall in a more comprehensive way.
That was the plan. And at Taxpayers for Common Sense, we supported the idea.
Enter the House Rules Committee. A little known congressional powerhouse, the Rules Committee is also called the speaker's committee. It's called that because the speaker of the House simultaneously served as the chairman of the committee until 1910 and, as the committee website says, "because it is the mechanism that the speaker uses to maintain control of the House floor."
The Pentagon policy bill, HR 2810, needed a "rule" to allow for its consideration on the House floor. The committee meets to consider the hundreds of amendments offered by House members, decide which will be allowed during House debate and determine how long that debate may last. And this is where we're going to step off the cliff into the inner workings of the House, as I promised above.
An amendment was offered by Republican Reps. Steven Palazzo and Trent Kelly from Mississippi (which has coastline but no land border) to strike Section 1039. That means Pentagon money could be spent to construct a border wall. In the normal process of things, this amendment would have been accepted by the Rules Committee and then debated and voted on by the full House of Representatives. But nothing about this amendment can be called normal.
He saying that $145,000,000 of unspent funds from "Bilateral Economic Assistance" in 2015 will not be repurposed as stated in FY2018 Act because he considers them " EMERGENCY APPROPRIATIONS; OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS / GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM" funds per section 251(b)(2)(A) in the 1985 act (as amended through 2018).
Couch change for the feds.
Yes. Tracy is reading through the whole bill and posting commentary. Bit by bit.
A poster wished that a link to tracy on twitter be posted. I did, I also posted a link to her analysis of the procurement section to get people started. Her analysis is a real gift but to understand the bill you would need to read her whole thread. The information about what funds can be re-appropriated and what funds can be used if the wall is declared a National emergency are still being teased together.
Nancy Ryan might be more appropriate....
That’s a keeper...lol. Everyone should refer to him by that name.
Hannity was hinting at this the other night when he was talking to Laura Ingraham. He said there were “other monies” for the wall.
If that holds true and Trump does fund the wall, etc., crows will become an endangered species because so many fair-weather Trumpies will be having crow for dinner.
Others will in the hospital recovering from the ‘falling on their swords’ wounds.
When/how will we know for sure?
As soon as a leftist judge calls a halt to it.
not sure if this is the latest or if I understand it, but here’s 251 if anyone can cut and paste a pdf file (251 is on pg 2-5). (1) has to do with enforcing sequestration; (2) is related to the President’s power over “overseas and war on terror” military discretionary funding:
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s365enr/pdf/BILLS-112s365enr.pdf
let me see if I’m following here...so if dept goes over their budget and an emergency spending bill provides additional funding, then any budget for the next year is reduced by the sum total of that additional funding?
I was upset with him yesterday, but I still love this President.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.