Congressional Record: July 25, 2006 (Senate) Page S8189-S8190 PRESIDENTIAL SIGNING STATEMENTS Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, yesterday we were reminded, again, of the lawlessness of the Bush-Cheney administration as it continues its abuse of ``signing statements'' as part of a systematic pursuit of power without the checks and balances inherent in our constitutional democracy. A most distinguished task force of the American Bar Association has now released a unanimous report highly critical of this President's practice as ``contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers.'' I thank the distinguish panel of conservatives and moderates, or Republicans and Democrats for their thoughtful report. Let me be clear, this is not some academic debate without consequences. I have been seeking to draw attention to this surreptitious power-grab for at least 4 years, since this President's unusual signing statement following enactment of the Sarbanes-Oxley bill in 2002 to reign in corporate abuses that cost so many Americans their livelihoods and their retirement savings through Enron and other scandals. The President signed the bill but had secret ``reservations.'' That is when I first realized the President's unorthodox, unwise and unsound practice of signing a bill while crossing his fingers behind his back. We have seen it over and over again as this President insists on the equivalent of an unwritten line- item veto that would undermine the checks and balances of our constitutional separation of powers and that the Supreme Court correctly determined was unconstitutional. Later this week, the President will be signing the reauthorization and revitalization of the Voting Rights Act, passed by the House with 390 votes and unanimously last week by the Senate. In the past I could have gone to the White House to witness the bill signing knowing that our three branches of government were all operating within their proper authority. That is the way we have operated for more than 200 years. But this year, with this President, that is not the way any longer. After the bill signing, after the celebration, after the bipartisan plaudits and after the President takes credit for the civil rights advances that our bill is intended to represent--after all this--we will have to wait to see whether there is a belated presidential document, a so-called ``signing statement.'' Only then will we see if the President will seek to create a gloss that Congress did not intend, or modify a provision of law more to his liking, or declare some provision of law something he and his administration will not enforce. That is wrong. That is the opposite of the rule of law. And no one--not even the President--is above the law. The Constitution places the lawmaking power, ``All legislative Powers'' in the Congress. That is an article I power. A check on the congressional power is the requirement that ``before [a bill] becomes a Law'' it must be presented to the President. Section 7 of article I of the Constitution provides: ``If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated.'' Of course the Constitution then contemplates congressional power to override a presidential objection or veto. That is our system, that is our law. The President has the option to veto-- in fact after 5 years in office, he finally exercised that power last week when he vetoed the stem cell research legislation. I disagreed with his decision to veto that bill, but it was within his constitutional power to do it. He does not have the power to issue a decree that he will pick and choose which provisions of laws to follow in statements issued after Congress passes a law. What this President is doing is wrong. Last month, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the use of these signing statements by the Bush-Cheney administration. I noted that we are at a pivotal moment in our Nation's history, where Americans are faced with a President who makes sweeping claims for almost unchecked Executive power. This President's use of signing statements is unprecedented, although presaged by the work of Samuel Alito at the Meese Justice Department during the Reagan Presidency--now Justice Alito on the Supreme Court. This administration is now routinely using signing statements to proclaim which parts of the law the President will follow, which parts he will ignore, and which he will reinterpret. This is what I have called ``cherry-picking'' and it is wrong. This President's broad use of signing statements to try to rewrite the laws passed by the Congress poses a grave threat to our constitutional system of checks and balances. During his 5 years in office, President Bush has abused his bill signing statements to assign his own interpretations to laws passed by Congress. According to a review of these statements conducted by The Boston Globe, President Bush has employed signing statements to ignore or disobey more than 750 provisions enacted by the Congress since 2001, more than all previous Presidents in the history of our Nation combined. According to scholarly research that number now tops 800 provisions of law. I have alluded to the President's signing statement in 2002 in connection with the Sarbanes-Oxley law designed to combat corporate fraud. The President used his signing statement to attempt to narrow a provision protecting corporate whistleblowers in a way that would have afforded them very little protection. Senator Grassley and I wrote a letter to the President stating that his narrow interpretation was at odds with the plain language of the statute, and the administration reluctantly relented on this view but only after much protest. We also witnessed the President's fondness for signing statements earlier this year, when after months of debate and negotiations in Congress, the President issued a signing statement for the USA PATRIOT ACT reauthorization language in which he stated his intentions not to follow the reporting and oversight provisions contained in that bill. I noted this abuse at the time. When I voted against that reauthorization, I explained it was because I did not have confidence that the oversight provisions we succeeded in incorporating into the law would be respected. What little doubt was left by the self-serving signing statement was erased last week when the Attorney General of the United States refused to commit to following the law. This President has also used signing statements to challenge laws banning torture, on affirmative action and prohibiting the censorship of scientific data. In fact, time and again, this President has stood before the American people, signed laws enacted by their representatives in Congress, while all along crossing his fingers behind his back. And, while this President used to boast--until his veto of stem cell research legislation--that he was the first modern President to have never vetoed a bill, he has cleverly used his signing statements as a de facto line-item veto to cherry-pick which laws he will enforce in a manner not consistent with our Constitution. Under our constitutional system of government, when Congress passes a bill and the President signs it into law, that should be the end of the story. At that moment the President's constitutional duty is to ``take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.'' That is the article II power, the executive power, to ``execute'' the laws, it is not a legislative power. So when the President, including this President, takes the oath of office and swears on the Bible, he does so, in the words of the Constitution, ``Before he enter on the Execution of his Office,'' and swears that he will ``faithfully execute'' the office of President and ``preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.'' I remind this President and this administration that the Constitution has more than one article and that ``All legislative Power'' is vested in Congress, not some ``unitary executive.'' When the President uses signing statements to unilaterally rewrite the laws enacted by the people's representatives in Congress, he undermines the rule of law and our constitutional [[Page S8190]] checks and balances designed to protect the rights of the American people. This President's abuse of signing statements is all the more dangerous because he has packed the courts with judges willing to defer to him and presidential authority. I have noted that Justice Alito helped develop this device. I could not help but note that Justice Scalia, who is famous for not consulting legislative history, reached out in his dissent in the recent Hamdan decision to reference a recent Presidential signing statement. These signing statements are a diabolical device but this President will continue to use and abuse them, if the Republican Congress lets him. So far, this Congress has done exactly that. Whether it is torture, warrantless eavesdropping on American citizens, or the unlawful detention of military prisoners, this Republican-led Congress has been willing to turn a blind eye and rubberstamp the questionable actions of this administration, regardless of the consequences to our Constitution or civil liberties. ____________________