Thread: Bush lifts wage rules for Katrina

http://money.cnn.com/2005/09/08/news/ec ... ages.reut/

Bush lifts wage rules for Katrina
President signs executive order allowing contractors to pay below prevailing wage in affected areas.
September 8, 2005: 9:42 PM EDT


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush issued an executive order Thursday allowing federal contractors rebuilding in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina to pay below the prevailing wage.

In a notice to Congress, Bush said the hurricane had caused "a national emergency" that permits him to take such action under the 1931 Davis-Bacon Act in ravaged areas of Alabama, Florida, Louisiana and Mississippi.

Bush's action came as the federal government moved to provide billions of dollars in aid, and drew rebukes from two of organized labor's biggest friends in Congress, Rep. George Miller of California and Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, both Democrats.

"The administration is using the devastation of Hurricane Katrina to cut the wages of people desperately trying to rebuild their lives and their communities," Miller said.

"President Bush should immediately realize the colossal mistake he has made in signing this order and rescind it and ensure that America puts its people back to work in the wake of Katrina at wages that will get them and their families back on their feet," Miller said.

"I regret the president's decision," said Kennedy.

"One of the things the American people are very concerned about is shabby work and that certainly is true about the families whose houses are going to be rebuilt and buildings that are going to be restored," Kennedy said.

The Davis-Bacon law requires federal contractors to pay workers at least the prevailing wages in the area where the work is conducted. It applies to federally funded construction projects such as highways and bridges.

Bush's executive order suspends the requirements of the Davis-Bacon law for designated areas hit by the storm.

That is wonderful, now after it all is rebuilt; it will fall on their heads. Sounds like a huge illegal vacuum.

Let’s see, who has one of the biggest contracts with the Government. Could it be Halliburton? Could they want to hire illegals? Why not pay a livable wage to those Americans who now are out of work since you will be wasting our tax dollars to rebuild it?

This is exactly what I was thinking jp when I read the story.

I guess that all of the rebuilding will be done by illegals. The work should go to the Americans who have lost jobs and need to get back on their feet, and they should be paid a living wage.

In a notice to Congress, Bush said the hurricane had caused "a national emergency" that permits him to take such action under the 1931 Davis-Bacon Act in ravaged areas of Alabama, Florida, Louisiana and Mississippi.

This is why he needs to go.

Darlene, I think that is just one of many reasons.

you know i have to also thank the AFL-CIO for this?

This is unbelievable, i am a lose of words. I think Congress is the only one that can make a law to trump his E.O.

Pro

Prometheus,
They ought to over ride it ASAP.

Jp, i agree i am just not sure if they can or not!

Pro

Congressional Recourse

If Congress does not like what the executive branch is doing, it has two main options. First, it may rewrite or amend a previous law, or spell it out in greater detail how the Executive Branch must act. Of course, the President has the right to veto the bill if he disagrees with it, so, in practice, a 2/3 majority if often required to override an Executive Order.


Congress is less likely to challenge EOs that deal with foreign policy, national defense, or the implementation and negotiation of treaties, as these are powers granted largely to the President by the Constitution. As the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, the President is also considered the nation's "Chief Diplomat." In fact, given national security concerns, some defense or security related EOs (often called National Security Directives or Presidential Decision Directives) are not made public.

In addition to congressional recourse, Executive Orders can be challenged in court, usually on the grounds that the Order deviates from "congressional intent" or exceeds the President's constitutional powers. In one such notable instance, President Harry Truman, was rebuked by the Supreme Court for overstepping the bounds of presidential authority. After World War II, Truman seized control of steel mills across the nation in an effort to settle labor disputes. In response to a challenge of this action, the Supreme Court ruled that the seizure was unconstitutional and exceeded presidential powers because neither the Constitution or any statute authorized the President to seize private businesses to settle labor disputes. For the most part, however, the Court has been fairly tolerant of wide range of executive actions.
Contributing Author: Jeffrey C. Fox, Catawba College

http://www.thisnation.com/question/040.html

Anotehr interesting read
The Impact of Executive Orders on the Legislative Process: Executive Lawmaking?
http://www.house.gov/rules/rules_kink08qa.htm