国会记录：2006年7月25日（参议院）第S8189-S8190 PRESIDENTIAL签署的声明莱希先生。主席先生，昨天我们被提醒，再次，布什 - 切尼政府的无法无天的，因为它继续其'签署声明'的'滥用作为系统追求力量，而不检查的一部分，并平衡了我们的宪政民主的内在。美国律师协会的最杰出的专案组目前已经发布了一致的报告，严厉批评这个总统的做法是``违背法治和我们的三权分立的宪政体制。'我感谢区分保守派的面板温和派，或共和党和民主党对他们深思熟虑的报告。让我清楚，这不是没有后果的一些学术争论。我一直在寻求提请注意这个秘密开机抢了至少4年，自2002年萨班斯 - 奥克斯利法案的这个总统的不寻常的签署声明如下制定以企业滥用王权成本，使许多美国人自己的生活和自己的退休生活通过节约安然和其他丑闻。总统签署了该法案，但有秘密``保留。“”这是我第一次意识到总统的非正统，签署了一项法案，而过路他的手指在背后的不明智和不合理的做法。我们已经看到了一遍又一遍，因为这对总统的不成文线 - 单项否决权会破坏我们的权力的宪法分离制衡的当量和最高法院正确地确定是违宪的坚持。本周晚些时候，总统将签署再次授权和投票权法案的振兴，由众议院以390票并一致上周参议院通过。 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. ____________________