By David Nather, CQ Staff

President Obama campaigned as someone who wouldn’t use signing statements to get around provisions of new laws. But on Tuesday, four House Democrats accused him of doing exactly that, and warned that he might not get any more money for some of his priorities unless he stops.

The letter from Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank of Massachusetts, Appropriations Chairman David R. Obey of Wisconsin, and Reps. Nita M. Lowey and Gregory W. Meeks of New York — who chair the two subcommittees that deal with international financial institutions — is a strongly worded rebuke of Obama’s continued use of the signing statements after he criticized President George W. Bush for using them to thwart the will of Congress.

Specifically, the lawmakers scolded Obama about a June 26 signing statement in which he rejected conditions on funds for the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

Although the administration has assured the lawmakers that it will comply with the conditions, “we request that you no longer assert the right to ignore provisions that Congress adds through the normal legislative process for funding for the international financial institutions,” the letter stated. If the appropriators see that the administration isn’t respecting the conditions imposed by Congress, the lawmakers warned, “it will make it virtually impossible to provide further allocations for these institutions.”

The Background

Obama, after pushing Congress to include the IMF and World Bank funding in the supplemental spending bill (PL 111-32), issued a signing statement rejecting the funding conditions as an intrusion on his presidential authority to conduct foreign policy.

Among other things, the bill required the Treasury Department to oppose loans to nations that have supported terrorism, force the World Bank to pay more attention to workers’ rights, increase oversight of the IMF, and push for greater climate change reduction efforts and more transparency at both organizations.

“I will not treat these provisions as limiting my ability to engage in foreign diplomacy or negotiations,” Obama said in the statement. That’s a standard position for presidential administrations to take, according to legal experts. But it was jarring to his congressional allies, who had to work hard to find enough votes to pass the spending bill.

Two weeks ago, the House adopted a Republican amendment to the State-Foreign Operations appropriations bill (HR 3081), with only two dissenting votes, warning the Treasury Department not to ignore the conditions Congress had imposed in the supplemental spending bill. Tuesday’s letter was meant to reinforce the message, in case Obama didn’t get it the first time.

“The conditions that you have expressed your right to ignore are critical: each represents significant policy concerns, especially in light of the history of many of the international financial institutions that we believe have been insufficiently supportive of values that we know you share with us,” the lawmakers wrote. “In addition, these conditions were important in securing support in both houses.”

The Democrats reminded Obama that they had criticized Bush heavily for using signing statements to “pick and choose which aspects of congressional statutes he was required to enforce,” and said they were “chagrined to see you appear to express a similar attitude.”