Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. The `Victim-activated Landmine Abolition Act of 2006', which I am joining my friend from Vermont, Senator Leahy, in introducing today would end the procurement of these indiscriminate weapons by the United States. We neither need these weapons not is it in our interest to continue to insist on the right to use them. They cannot distinguish between civilians and combatants, and as long as we stockpile them we cannot credibly urge others to stop using them against our troops. Does my friend from Vermont agree with me that our goal in sponsoring this legislation is to reaffirm United States leadership on this crucial humanitarian issue and to encourage other nations to follow our example?

Mr. SPECTER. I thank my friend, who has led this campaign for so many years. Landmines and other munitions that are designed to be victim- activated are inherently indiscriminate. In that sense, they are no different from poison gas. They should be abolished and replaced with weapons that have a man-in-the-loop who can distinguish between an enemy combatant and a civilian. The Department of Defense has this technology. It is time for the United States to adopt a policy that is consistent with the force protection needs of our troops and with the moral values of the American people.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, today I join Senator Leahy in introducing the Victim-Activated Landmine Abolition Act of 2006, which will prohibit the procurement of victim-activated landmines. Antipersonnel, victim-activated landmines are small, inexpensive weapons that kill or maim people upon contact. Indiscriminate use has produced many civilian casualties and has resulted in an international effort to control or ban these weapons. As a member of both the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense and Foreign Operations, I have supported efforts to create alternatives to victim-activated munitions, to mitigate the associated risks for innocent civilians, and to help those who have been inadvertently harmed. The United States sets an example for the world by remaining a global leader in providing funds for mine clearance, mine risk education, and mine survivor assistance activities. According to the Congressional Research Service, the United States has dedicated an estimated $500 million for demining efforts over the last 10 years. Furthermore, the U.S. Department of Defense, in conjunction with industry partners, has developed technology which permits the deployment of mines that cannot be activated by the victim. This ``man- in-the-loop'' technology will ensure that innocent civilians are not harmed by mines. On September 18, 1997, diplomats from almost 90 countries met in Oslo, Norway, and adopted the text of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction, commonly referred to as the Ottawa Convention or the Mine Ban Treaty. The Mine Ban Treaty went into effect on March 1, 1999, and mandates that countries discontinue the production, stockpile, use or exportation of antipersonnel landmines. It further mandates that countries clear their territory of mines and destroy stockpiles. The Mine Ban Treaty is credited with the reduction in victims and procurement of mines. Although the U.S. has declined to participate in the treaty, the U.S. continues to lead the world in dollars spent on aid and efforts to help foreign nations demine fields and dispose of thousands of antipersonnel landmines, which is a costly and dangerous undertaking. The U.S. has not used antipersonnel mines since the 1991 Persian Gulf war. Since 1992, the U.S. has prohibited exportation of antipersonnel mines and U.S. production was halted in 1997. A review of the facts surrounding landmines and the tragic consequences that have resulted from their use has convinced me that the indiscriminate use of these weapons must be stopped. The International Campaign to Ban Landmines estimates that there are more than 80 million landmines in the ground in more than 80 countries and that 15,000-20,000 people are maimed or killed by landmines each year. UNICEF estimates that 30 to 40 percent of mine victims are children under 15 years old. Millions more suffer from the economic and psychological impact of these weapons. Innocent civilians in foreign countries are not the only victims that suffer the debilitating effects of these weapons. Landmines have injured and killed thousands of U.S. and allied troops in every U.S.- fought conflict since World War II, including those in Iraq and Afghanistan. Although landmines cost as little as $3 to produce, they can cost as much as $1,000 per mine to clear. The legislation introduced today calls on the United States to continue to set an example for other countries by implementing a ban on the procurement of victim-activated weapons systems. Further, it recognizes that the U.S. has acquired reliable technology that enables all weapons systems to be equipped with man-in-the-loop targeting and triggering capabilities, meaning that the device can be deployed and triggered only in response to an intentional action by a person. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. The `Victim-activated Landmine Abolition Act of 2006', which I am joining my friend from Vermont, Senator Leahy, in introducing today would end the procurement of these indiscriminate weapons by the United States. We neither need these weapons not is it in our interest to continue to insist on the right to use them. They cannot distinguish between civilians and combatants, and as long as we stockpile them we cannot credibly urge others to stop using them against our troops. Does my friend from Vermont agree with me that our goal in sponsoring this legislation is to reaffirm United States leadership on this crucial humanitarian issue and to encourage other nations to follow our example?

Mr. SPECTER. I thank my friend, who has led this campaign for so many years. Landmines and other munitions that are designed to be victim- activated are inherently indiscriminate. In that sense, they are no different from poison gas. They should be abolished and replaced with weapons that have a man-in-the-loop who can distinguish between an enemy combatant and a civilian. The Department of Defense has this technology. It is time for the United States to adopt a policy that is consistent with the force protection needs of our troops and with the moral values of the American people.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that the HELP Committee be discharged from further consideration and the Senate proceed to S. Res. 420.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, in the absence of any other Senator seeking recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 5 p.m. on Tuesday, August 1, the two pending amendments be withdrawn, S. 3711 then be read the third time, and the Senate proceed to a vote on passage of the bill, with no intervening action or debate; provided further that no motions to proceed be in order during Tuesday's session of the Senate.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I think there is no doubt, given the energy situation in the world and in the United States, that there is a need for the United States to work toward energy independence and to have additional exploration, development, and production activities where they can be done in an environmentally safe way. I believe that, all factors considered, S. 3711 is, on balance, at a close question, worthy of enactment. But I think it would have been vastly preferable had the leader not filled the tree so as to prevent further amendments so that the Senate could have undertaken a broader examination of energy issues, done more than just authorize further exploration but instead taken positive steps on other important lines. For example, I filed an amendment numbered 4741, which would have made very significant changes in the antitrust laws in the United States, which would have had a significant impact on reducing our dependence on OPEC oil and would have promoted competition in the oil industry by taking a firm stand against anticompetitive mergers. The oil and gas industry has seen over 2,600 mergers since the 1990s, including transactions involving the largest oil companies in the nation, like Conoco's merger with Phillips, Chevron's merger with and Texaco, Exxon's merger with Mobil, Ultramar Diamond Shamrock's merger with Valero, and many others which will be specified in a statement I will append at the conclusion of these extemporaneous remarks. My amendment would have required the Government Accountability Office to study whether remedies ordered by the antitrust enforcement agencies to ensure that mergers do not substantially lessen competition have been adequate. Once the study was completed, the antitrust enforcement agencies would then be required to consider whether any additional remedies are necessary. The amendment would have required the Federal Trade Commission and the Justice Department to consider whether current merger laws are adequate, given the particular problems that exist in the oil and gas markets. The thrust is to determine whether we need to change the Clayton Act to make it tougher to get massive mergers in these markets approved. I know there are those who contend that the mergers provide efficiencies. But I think it is virtually incontrovertible that these mergers lessen competition. When you have Exxon and Mobil and the other oil companies merging, there simply is less competition. This amendment stops short of amending the Clayton Act, but does require a study to see if the Clayton Act ought to be changed. This provision was included in S. 2557, the Oil and Gas Industry Antitrust Act of 2006, which was taken up by the Judiciary Committee, which I chair. We had two hearings and a markup and the Committee reported it to the floor. So, this was an ideal occasion to consider this legislation--as part of the debate over an overall energy policy aimed at lessening dependence upon foreign oil. A second part of S. 2557 provided that OPEC would be subject to our antitrust laws. It is obvious that OPEC is a cartel that fixes output and prices for oil, an arrangement that would violate our antitrust laws. However, they are currently exempt. By statute, we could bring them under our antitrust laws. It would have made a lot of sense to do that, especially at a time when we are considering the legislation now pending, S. 3711. In addition, I believe it would have been very beneficial to our national energy policy to have considered an amendment offered by Senator Bingaman, No. 4692, which provides for oil conservation. Senator Bingaman and I have cosponsored legislation in the past which would have lessened the amount of oil projected to be consumed in the United States under an oil conservation system. When we are considering S. 3711 and we are considering the basic issues as to how to achieve energy independence for the United States, and provide security for the United States, there are other avenues that this legislation should have explored. However, we were prevented from doing so by the procedures adopted by the Republican leadership, which precluded additional amendments. I think that is contrary to the public interest, and I expressed that view to the leadership. I thought we ought to have an opportunity to consider additional ways of achieving energy independence. Once the so-called tree is filled, you cannot offer any further amendments, so that I could not offer amendment No. 4741, which is the legislation reported out of the Judiciary Committee under the caption S. 2557, the Oil and Gas Industry Antitrust Act of 2006, nor could we take up the amendment offered by Senator Bingaman on oil conservation. I think that is most unfortunate. Once the tree is filled and these amendments cannot be offered, there is no alternative but to move for cloture, move to complete action on the bill so that we can take up other important matters to come before the Senate which are awaiting action on the docket. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my remarks be printed in the Record

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 5877, which was received from the House.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I understand there are two bills at the desk due for a second reading.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, in order to place the bills on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to further proceedings en bloc.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I have been asked to ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:45 a.m. on Tuesday, August 1; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired and the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved, and the Senate resume consideration of S. 3711 as under the previous order, with the time until the vote equally divided, with the Senate to stand in recess from 12:30 to 2:15 to accommodate the weekly policy luncheons.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. On behalf of the leader, I state that today we continued debate on the Gulf Coast Energy Security bill and invoked cloture, 72 to 23. Senators wishing to speak on the bill should come to the floor tomorrow. The vote on passage will occur at 5 p.m. tomorrow. Senators are reminded that we have a great deal of work to complete before the August recess, and Members should expect a full week with late nights possible all week. I thank my colleagues again for their cooperation as we wrap up important legislative priorities.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. On the leader's wrap-up, this is inconsistent with morning business, but the leader says: If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order. May the record show that the Presiding Officer is smiling.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I ask that the Chair lay before the Senate a message from the House to accompany S. 3741. The Presiding Officer laid before the Senate a message from the House as follows:

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate concur in the House amendment, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition today to introduce the Presidential Signing Statements Act of 2006. This bill achieves three important goals. First, it prevents the President from issuing a signing statement that alters the meaning of a statute by instructing Federal and State courts not to rely on Presidential signing statements in interpreting a statute. Second, it permits the Congress to seek what amounts to a declaratory judgment on the legality of Presidential signing statements that seek to modify--or even to nullify--a duly enacted statute. Third, it grants Congress the power to intervene in any case in the Supreme Court where the construction or constitutionality of any act of Congress is in question and a presidential signing statement for that act was issued. Presidential signing statements are nothing new. Since the days of President James Monroe, Presidents have issued statements when signing bills. It is widely agreed that there are legitimate uses for signing statements. For example, Presidents may use signing statements to instruct executive branch officials how to administer a law. They may also use them to explain to the public the likely effect of a law. And, there may be a host of other legitimate uses. However, the use of signing statements has risen dramatically in recent years. As of June 26, 2006, President Bush had issued 130 signing statements. President Clinton issued 105 signing statements during his two terms. While the mere numbers may not be significant, the reality is that the way the President has used those statements renders the legislative process a virtual nullity. The President cannot use a signing statement to rewrite the words of a statute nor can the President use a signing statement to selectively nullify those provisions he does not like. This much is clear from our Constitution. The Constitution grants the President a specific, narrowly defined role in enacting legislation. Article I, section 1 of the Constitution vests ``all legislative powers . . . in a Congress.'' Article I, section 7 of the Constitution provides that when a bill is presented to the President, he may either sign it or veto it with his objections. He may also choose to do nothing, thus rendering a so- called pocket veto. The President cannot veto part of bill, however; he cannot veto certain provisions he does not like. The Founders had good reason for constructing the legislative process as it is: by creating a bicameral legislature and then granting the President the veto power. According to The Records of the Constitutional Convention, the veto power was designed by our Framers to protect citizens from a particular Congress that might enact oppressive legislation. However, the Framers did not want the veto power to be unchecked, and so, in article I, section 7, they balanced it by allowing Congress to override a veto by two-thirds vote. As you can see, this is a finely structured constitutional procedure that goes straight to the heart of our system of check and balances. Any action by the President that circumvents this finely structured procedure is an unconstitutional attempt to usurp legislative authority. If the President is permitted to rewrite the bills that Congress passes and cherry pick which provisions he likes and does not like, he subverts the constitutional process designed by our Framers. The Supreme Court has affirmed that the constitutional process for enacting legislation must be safe guarded. As the Supreme Court explained in INS v. Chahda, ``It emerges clearly that the prescription for legislative action in Article I, Section 1, clause 7 represents the Framers' decision that the legislative power of the Federal government be exercised in accord with a single, finely wrought and exhaustively considered, procedure.'' So, while signing statements have been commonplace since our country's founding, we must make sure that they are not being used in an unconstitutional manner; a manner that seeks to rewrite legislation, and exercise line item vetoes. President Bush has used signing statements in ways that have raised some eyebrows. For example, Congress passed the PATRIOT Act after months of deliberation. We debated nearly every provision--often redrafting and revising. Moreover, we worked very closely with the President because we wanted to get it right. We wanted to make sure that we were passing legislation that the executive branch would find workable. In fact, in many ways, the process was an excellent example of the legislative branch and the executive branch working together towards a common goal. In the end, the bill that was passed by the Senate and the House contained several oversight provisions intended to make sure the FBI did not abuse the special terrorism-related powers to search homes and secretly seize papers. It also required Justice Department officials to keep closer track of how often the FBI uses the new powers and in what type of situations. The President signed the PATRIOT Act into law, but afterwards, he wrote a signing statement that said he could withhold any information from Congress provided in the oversight provisions if he decided that disclosure would impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative process of the executive, or the performance of the executive's constitutional duties. Now, during the entire process of working with the President to draft the PATRIOT Act, he never asked the Congress to include this language in the Act. At a hearing we held on signing statements, I asked an executive branch official, Michelle Boardman from the Office of Legal Counsel, why the President did not ask the Congress to put the signing statement language into the bill. She simply didn't have an answer. I asked her to get back to me with the answer and I still have not gotten a response. Take another example, the McCain amendment. In that legislation, Congress voted by an overwhelming margin--90 to 9--to ban all U.S. personnel from inflicting cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment on any prisoner held anywhere by the United States. President Bush, who had threatened to veto the legislation, instead invited its prime sponsor, Senator John McCain, to the White House for a public reconciliation and declared they had a common objective: to make it clear to the world that this government does not torture and that we adhere to the international convention of torture. Now from that, you might conclude that by signing the McCain amendment into law, the Bush administration has fully committed to not using torture. But you would be wrong. After the public ceremony of signing the bill into law, the President issued a signing statement saying his administration would interpret the new law ``in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power.'' This vague language may mean that--despite the McCain amendment--the administration may still be preserving a right to inflict torture on prisoners and to evade the International Convention Against Torture. The constitutional structure of enacting legislation must be safeguarded. That is why I am here today to introduce the Presidential Signing Statements Act of 2006. This bill does not seek to limit the President's power--and this bill does not seek to expand Congress's power. Rather, this bill simply seeks to safeguard our constitution. First, the bill instructs courts not to rely on Presidential signing statements in construing an act. This will provide courts with much- needed guidance on how legislation should be interpreted. The Supreme Court's reliance on Presidential signing statements has been sporadic and unpredictable. In some cases--such as United States v. Lopez, where the Court struck down the Gun-Free School Zones Act--the Supreme Court has relied on Presidential signing statements as a source of authority, while in other cases, such as the recent military tribunals case, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, it has conspicuously declined to do so. This inconsistency has the unfortunate effect of rendering the interpretation of Federal law unpredictable. It is well within Congress's power to resolve judicial disputes such as this by enacting rules of statutory interpretation. This power flows from article I, section 8, clause 18 of the Constitution, which gives Congress the power ``To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.'' Rules of statutory interpretation are necessary and proper to execute the legislative power. Moreover, any legislation that sets out rules for interpreting an act makes legislation more clear and precise which is exactly what we aim to achieve here in Congress. Congress can and should exercise this power over the interpretation of Federal statutes in a systematic and comprehensive manner. Second, this bill permits the Congress to seek a declaratory judgment on the legality of Presidential signing statements that seek to modify--or even to nullify--a duly enacted statute. Again, this simply ensures that signing statements are not used in an unconstitutional manner. Third, it grants Congress the power to intervene in any case in the Supreme Court where the construction or constitutionality of any act of Congress is in question and a Presidential signing statement for that act was issued. That way, if the court is trying to determine the meaning or the constitutionality of an act, the Congress gets a voice in the debate. Take for example United States v. Lopez. In that case, the Supreme Court struck down the Gun-Free School Zones Act as beyond Congress's power to regulate commerce. Chief Justice Rehnquist relied, in part, on President George Bush's signing statement to support the Court's conclusion that the plain language of the statute does not suggest that it affects interstate commerce. Now, I do not see, in a case like this, why Congress should not get to explain its side. This bill would allow Congress to intervene and present evidence as to the meaning of an act in question. This bill does not seek to limit the President's power and it does not seek to expand Congress's power. It simply seeks to put measures in place that will safeguard the constitutional structure of enacting legislation. In preserving this structure, this bill reinforces our system of checks and balances and separation of powers set out in our Constitution and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition today to introduce the Presidential Signing Statements Act of 2006. This bill achieves three important goals. First, it prevents the President from issuing a signing statement that alters the meaning of a statute by instructing Federal and State courts not to rely on Presidential signing statements in interpreting a statute. Second, it permits the Congress to seek what amounts to a declaratory judgment on the legality of Presidential signing statements that seek to modify--or even to nullify--a duly enacted statute. Third, it grants Congress the power to intervene in any case in the Supreme Court where the construction or constitutionality of any act of Congress is in question and a presidential signing statement for that act was issued. Presidential signing statements are nothing new. Since the days of President James Monroe, Presidents have issued statements when signing bills. It is widely agreed that there are legitimate uses for signing statements. For example, Presidents may use signing statements to instruct executive branch officials how to administer a law. They may also use them to explain to the public the likely effect of a law. And, there may be a host of other legitimate uses. However, the use of signing statements has risen dramatically in recent years. As of June 26, 2006, President Bush had issued 130 signing statements. President Clinton issued 105 signing statements during his two terms. While the mere numbers may not be significant, the reality is that the way the President has used those statements renders the legislative process a virtual nullity. The President cannot use a signing statement to rewrite the words of a statute nor can the President use a signing statement to selectively nullify those provisions he does not like. This much is clear from our Constitution. The Constitution grants the President a specific, narrowly defined role in enacting legislation. Article I, section 1 of the Constitution vests ``all legislative powers . . . in a Congress.'' Article I, section 7 of the Constitution provides that when a bill is presented to the President, he may either sign it or veto it with his objections. He may also choose to do nothing, thus rendering a so- called pocket veto. The President cannot veto part of bill, however; he cannot veto certain provisions he does not like. The Founders had good reason for constructing the legislative process as it is: by creating a bicameral legislature and then granting the President the veto power. According to The Records of the Constitutional Convention, the veto power was designed by our Framers to protect citizens from a particular Congress that might enact oppressive legislation. However, the Framers did not want the veto power to be unchecked, and so, in article I, section 7, they balanced it by allowing Congress to override a veto by two-thirds vote. As you can see, this is a finely structured constitutional procedure that goes straight to the heart of our system of check and balances. Any action by the President that circumvents this finely structured procedure is an unconstitutional attempt to usurp legislative authority. If the President is permitted to rewrite the bills that Congress passes and cherry pick which provisions he likes and does not like, he subverts the constitutional process designed by our Framers. The Supreme Court has affirmed that the constitutional process for enacting legislation must be safe guarded. As the Supreme Court explained in INS v. Chahda, ``It emerges clearly that the prescription for legislative action in Article I, Section 1, clause 7 represents the Framers' decision that the legislative power of the Federal government be exercised in accord with a single, finely wrought and exhaustively considered, procedure.'' So, while signing statements have been commonplace since our country's founding, we must make sure that they are not being used in an unconstitutional manner; a manner that seeks to rewrite legislation, and exercise line item vetoes. President Bush has used signing statements in ways that have raised some eyebrows. For example, Congress passed the PATRIOT Act after months of deliberation. We debated nearly every provision--often redrafting and revising. Moreover, we worked very closely with the President because we wanted to get it right. We wanted to make sure that we were passing legislation that the executive branch would find workable. In fact, in many ways, the process was an excellent example of the legislative branch and the executive branch working together towards a common goal. In the end, the bill that was passed by the Senate and the House contained several oversight provisions intended to make sure the FBI did not abuse the special terrorism-related powers to search homes and secretly seize papers. It also required Justice Department officials to keep closer track of how often the FBI uses the new powers and in what type of situations. The President signed the PATRIOT Act into law, but afterwards, he wrote a signing statement that said he could withhold any information from Congress provided in the oversight provisions if he decided that disclosure would impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative process of the executive, or the performance of the executive's constitutional duties. Now, during the entire process of working with the President to draft the PATRIOT Act, he never asked the Congress to include this language in the Act. At a hearing we held on signing statements, I asked an executive branch official, Michelle Boardman from the Office of Legal Counsel, why the President did not ask the Congress to put the signing statement language into the bill. She simply didn't have an answer. I asked her to get back to me with the answer and I still have not gotten a response. Take another example, the McCain amendment. In that legislation, Congress voted by an overwhelming margin--90 to 9--to ban all U.S. personnel from inflicting cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment on any prisoner held anywhere by the United States. President Bush, who had threatened to veto the legislation, instead invited its prime sponsor, Senator John McCain, to the White House for a public reconciliation and declared they had a common objective: to make it clear to the world that this government does not torture and that we adhere to the international convention of torture. Now from that, you might conclude that by signing the McCain amendment into law, the Bush administration has fully committed to not using torture. But you would be wrong. After the public ceremony of signing the bill into law, the President issued a signing statement saying his administration would interpret the new law ``in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power.'' This vague language may mean that--despite the McCain amendment--the administration may still be preserving a right to inflict torture on prisoners and to evade the International Convention Against Torture. The constitutional structure of enacting legislation must be safeguarded. That is why I am here today to introduce the Presidential Signing Statements Act of 2006. This bill does not seek to limit the President's power--and this bill does not seek to expand Congress's power. Rather, this bill simply seeks to safeguard our constitution. First, the bill instructs courts not to rely on Presidential signing statements in construing an act. This will provide courts with much- needed guidance on how legislation should be interpreted. The Supreme Court's reliance on Presidential signing statements has been sporadic and unpredictable. In some cases--such as United States v. Lopez, where the Court struck down the Gun-Free School Zones Act--the Supreme Court has relied on Presidential signing statements as a source of authority, while in other cases, such as the recent military tribunals case, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, it has conspicuously declined to do so. This inconsistency has the unfortunate effect of rendering the interpretation of Federal law unpredictable. It is well within Congress's power to resolve judicial disputes such as this by enacting rules of statutory interpretation. This power flows from article I, section 8, clause 18 of the Constitution, which gives Congress the power ``To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.'' Rules of statutory interpretation are necessary and proper to execute the legislative power. Moreover, any legislation that sets out rules for interpreting an act makes legislation more clear and precise which is exactly what we aim to achieve here in Congress. Congress can and should exercise this power over the interpretation of Federal statutes in a systematic and comprehensive manner. Second, this bill permits the Congress to seek a declaratory judgment on the legality of Presidential signing statements that seek to modify--or even to nullify--a duly enacted statute. Again, this simply ensures that signing statements are not used in an unconstitutional manner. Third, it grants Congress the power to intervene in any case in the Supreme Court where the construction or constitutionality of any act of Congress is in question and a Presidential signing statement for that act was issued. That way, if the court is trying to determine the meaning or the constitutionality of an act, the Congress gets a voice in the debate. Take for example United States v. Lopez. In that case, the Supreme Court struck down the Gun-Free School Zones Act as beyond Congress's power to regulate commerce. Chief Justice Rehnquist relied, in part, on President George Bush's signing statement to support the Court's conclusion that the plain language of the statute does not suggest that it affects interstate commerce. Now, I do not see, in a case like this, why Congress should not get to explain its side. This bill would allow Congress to intervene and present evidence as to the meaning of an act in question. This bill does not seek to limit the President's power and it does not seek to expand Congress's power. It simply seeks to put measures in place that will safeguard the constitutional structure of enacting legislation. In preserving this structure, this bill reinforces our system of checks and balances and separation of powers set out in our Constitution and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the Judiciary Committee, which I chair, is pleased to report the nomination of Mr. Jerome A. Holmes to be a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Mr. Holmes comes to this position with an excellent academic and professional background. He was nominated to be a judge on the court on May 4 of this year, received a hearing on June 15 of this year, and was reported out of the Judiciary Committee on July 13 on a voice vote. The unique situation with Mr. Holmes is that he would be the first African American to serve on the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. I am about to yield to the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn, who obviously has great familiarity with that circuit, being from the State of Oklahoma. Before moving to Pennsylvania to go to the University of Pennsylvania some years ago, I began my own academic career at the University of Oklahoma, having been a lifelong resident up to that point of the State of Kansas. The Tenth Circuit is near and dear to my heart. I can testify firsthand about the desirability and, in fact, the need for diversity on the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. There ought to be diversity to the extent practical and possible on all of our courts. It gives the constituency, the litigants, and the people who practice before the court, the sense that there are judges from every walk of life. The broader the background a court possesses, the more understanding it has of the problems we all face in a very diverse society, which is the melting pot of the world, the better. That does not mean in any way, shape, or form that qualifications ought to be subordinated, that we should pursue diversity for diversity's sake, regardless of other considerations. But when someone has the qualifications that Mr. Holmes presents to the Senate and in addition would bring diversity to the court to which he has been nominated, that is something to be considered. Certainly the desirability of having diversity on the Supreme Court of the United States is evident and highly visible. Thurgood Marshall was the first Justice on the Supreme Court to be African American. Now we have Justice Clarence Thomas, again, the only African-American judge. It took a long time for women to find a place on the Supreme Court, with the nomination and confirmation of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in 1981. That was the first year of my service in the Senate, after being elected in 1980. It was a great day when Justice Sandra Day O'Connor took her place on the Supreme Court of the United States. We now have, in addition, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. It is important to have that diversity. While there is not a Hispanic on the Supreme Court, we have Alberto Gonzales who is the Attorney General of the United States. There is no doubt these individuals are role models. They demonstrate that an Hispanic can come to the highest levels of the Government, as can an African American, as can a woman. It took a long time for women's suffrage, for women to have the right to vote, and to move into the upper echelons of all facets of American life. There is, realistically viewed, still a glass ceiling which imposes some limitation. Now on to Mr. Holmes and his very excellent qualifications. He graduated from Wake Forest University cum laude in 1983 and the Georgetown University Law Center in 1988. At Georgetown, he served as editor in chief of the Georgetown Immigration Law Journal. In the year 2000, he earned a master's in public administration from Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. Between college and law school, he worked as a social services assistant in the D.C. Department of Corrections. Following law school he clerked for Judge Wayne Alley of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma and then Tenth Circuit Judge William J. Holloway. Following the clerkship, he spent 3 years in private practice as an associate with the well-regarded law firm of Steptoe & Johnson. In 1994, Mr. Holmes began a distinguished career as a Federal prosecutor serving as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Western District of Oklahoma. Among other duties, he prosecuted public corruption, Federal criminal civil rights violations, and was the office's antiterrorism coordinator. He also worked on the prosecuting team that built a case against the perpetrators of the Oklahoma City bombing. Since 2005, he has been a director of the private Oklahoma law firm Crowe & Dunlevy, where he has focused on white collar criminal defense and complex litigation. He also chairs the firm's diversity committee. Mr. Holmes has given back to the people of Oklahoma by taking leadership roles in a wide variety of civic organizations, including service as a director of the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation, trustee of the Oklahoma City National Memorial Foundation, director of the Oklahoma Academy for State Goals, chairman of the City Rescue Mission, and vice president of the Oklahoma Bar Association. The American Bar Association has unanimously found Mr. Holmes to be qualified to serve on the Tenth Circuit. Before yielding the floor and turning over the management of the nomination to my distinguished colleague on the Judiciary Committee, I wish to make a few comments about a release of the American Bar Association today on so-called signing statements. I have discussed with Senator Coburn that I will take a few more minutes at this time. May the record show he is nodding in the affirmative. I shall not take too long. (The remarks of Mr. Specter are located in today's Record under ``Morning Business''.)