[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 1 (Thursday, January 4, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S26-S27]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    PRESIDENTIAL SIGNING STATEMENTS

  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, moving now to the issue of signing 
statements: I had introduced legislation in the 109th Congress to 
provide standing to the Congress to go to court when the President 
issues signing statements which, in effect, cherry-picked the 
provisions in the legislation he liked and disregarded the provisions 
in the legislation he disliked.
  That kind of a proceeding, in my view, is unconstitutional because 
the

[[Page S27]]

Constitution says that we present a bill to the President; he either 
signs it or vetoes it. His veto is subject to override on a two-thirds 
vote. But, the President cannot pick and choose among the provisions of 
the act.
  When we passed the PATRIOT Act, there were some provisions very 
carefully negotiated as to congressional oversight. No objection had 
been raised by the Department of Justice in our discussions as we 
negotiated about the bill. And then, when the President signed the 
bill, the President specifically said that he would not pay attention 
to those provisions if he felt that his Executive power would be 
impinged upon. If he disagreed with the provisions, he should have told 
us before we legislated.
  Similarly, in the McCain Anti-Torture legislation, which passed the 
Senate 90 to 9, a compromise was struck between the White House and 
Senator McCain. And here again, the President's signing statement seems 
to undermine the compromise that was struck.
  I am not going to reintroduce the legislation now because we are 
discussing some modifications with some of my Senate colleagues, and I 
am going to defer for a brief period of time to see if we can get 
additional cosponsors.

                          ____________________