Date: 2007-01-29
Speaker: WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

Thank you. and it is. The other day I walked into the Chamber. Mr. MURPHY. from that end of the room. and I noticed that there is a really huge. huge dictionary on the Republicans side of the Chamber which. quite honestly. it doesnt appear has gotten that much use on their side of the aisle. because words like accountability and oversight and checks and balances. and the things that have been with us through American history. maybe they tore the pages out that had those definitions or maybe they just chose to ignore them or just skipped over those pages when they were using it because. obviously we have a dictionary on the floor for a reason. but now. Mr. MEEK. just in great detail went over the number of different hearings that we will be engaging in to exercise the oversight and the accountability that the American people badly are seeking that has just been nonexistent. And. Mr. MEEK. I want to touch just quickly on one particular bit of oversight that we are going to be engaging in on Wednesday. I have the privilege of sitting on the House Judiciary Committee. and we will be holding our first hearing of the 110th Congress on Presidential signing statements. Now. that is something that we really havent had a chance to talk about too much on the floor during 30something. but I would like to explore it down the road a little bit. especially after we hold this hearing. Most of the American people. I think. dont realize that what this President has done. and other Presidents. many Presidents have exercised this option. the constitutionality of which I think is somewhat troubling. But this President has used Presidential signing statements more than any other Presidents combined. He has added more than 700 signing statements to legislation that we have adopted in both Houses of Congress. And what he does is he adds a note essentially to the bottom of the bill or to the margin of the bill next to a section that he doesnt agree with and he says: "I either reserve the right to not enforce this section or to interpret this section in this way." I mean. literally taking authority for the executive branch that I believe the Founding Fathers didnt envision. I mean. he did that with the PATRIOT Act. he did that with a number of significant pieces of legislation. Mr. MEEK. and it is really. really troubling. The executive branch in the Constitution does not have the right to interpret legislation. That is not their job. It is the Judiciarys responsibility to interpret legislation. it is the administrations job to execute what is laid before them by the Congress. Now. he certainly has the right to veto legislation that he doesnt agree with. but he doesnt have a line item veto. he doesnt have a line item veto in the budget. and he cant X out a portion of a bill that he doesnt like. And we are going to be holding a hearing on Wednesday. and we will have the Department of Justice representatives there to question very carefully where they think they get this legislative authority. and reassert Congresss role in oversight in this one area and in many others. as you detailed. I guess we are in the wrappingitup stage. because that is when the Web site chart comes out. I will be happy to yield to our good friend and freshman colleague. the gentleman from Connecticut.