House Opens Inquiry Of Presidential Signing Statements

WASHINGTON — House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., fired an opening salvo Wednesday in what is expected to be a series of hearings into allegations that the Bush administration is operating in excessive secrecy.

Conyers said the committee would start with a formal inquiry into President Bush's use of "presidential signing statements" and build from there.

"Today's hearing on presidential signing statements reflects the committee's intention to focus on the Bush administration's use and abuse of power," Conyers said. "For too long, through signing statements, critical policy has been engaged in secret, outside of the scrutiny of Congress, the courts and the American people."

But Texas Republican Lamar Smith, the new ranking member of the panel, decried the controversy as "much ado about nothing."

Critics of Bush have launched a massive fishing expedition, Smith said, but "have caught only the reddest of red herrings."

As for a series of hearings, Smith said that he would welcome oversight hearings. "I intend to make sure all the facts are out there for the American people, not just one side," Smith said.

Historically, presidents dating back to James Monroe have used signing statements to raise constitutional concerns in legislation, said John P. Elwood, the deputy assistant attorney general in the Justice Department's office of legal counsel. This president is using them in exactly the same vein, Elwood told the panel.

But critics say the president has attached signing statements to some 1,100 provisions in bills passed by Congress during his six years in office, far more than any other president.

They say the White House is using statements to bypass major pieces of legislation such as the anti-torture provision in the Detainee Treatment Act approved in December 2005.

In that case, Bush asserted the authority to use torture on prisoners if necessary to prevent terrorist attacks.

"The potential for misuse in the issuance of presidential signing statements has reached the point where it poses a real threat to our system of checks and balances and the rule of law," said Karen J. Mathis, president of the American Bar Association.

During the hearing, Republicans lined up behind the administration and Democrats challenged the administration to be more open about signing statements.

Congress does not even know how many times the president has issued signing statements because there is no reporting requirement, said Charles J. Ogletree, a law professor at Harvard University.

Ogletree questioned whether the Bush administration is using the statements to avoid issuing a politically charged veto. President Reagan vetoed 78 bills, Bush's father vetoed 44 bills, President Clinton issued 37 and Bush has only vetoed one bill, according to Ogletree.

"Is he (Bush) using the signing statement as a way to declare a law non-binding without having to face the public scrutiny that comes with a veto or possibility of a legislative override?" Ogletree asked.

But Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, professor of law at Georgetown University, disagreed. The whole subject of presidential signing statements has been plagued by false statistics and undue hysteria, he said.

"The most important function of presidential signing statements is to announce the president's interpretation of the law," Rosenkranz said.

But even some conservative Republicans are upset about the way the president has used presidential signing statements.

The issue is not whether or not presidents have the equal right to be heard by issuing a presidential signing statement, said former Oklahoma Republican Rep. Mickey Edwards.

"The question here is whether or not the President of the United States is above the law," Edwards said. "This Congress must block any attempt by any president to treat the peoples' representatives with contempt."

On the Web:

The House Judiciary Committee: http://judiciary.house.gov