[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3731 Introduced in Senate (IS)]








109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3731

To regulate the judicial use of presidential signing statements in the 
                  interpretation of Acts of Congress.


_______________________________________________________________________


                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 26, 2006

  Mr. Specter introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL


 
To regulate the judicial use of presidential signing statements in the 
                  interpretation of Acts of Congress.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Presidential Signing Statements Act 
of 2006''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    Congress finds the following--
            (1) While the executive branch has a role in enacting 
        legislation, it is clear that this is a limited role. 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, and his veto is subject to a congressional 
        override by two-thirds majorities in the House of 
        Representatives and Senate.
            (2) As the President signs a bill into law, the President 
        sometimes issues a statement elaborating on his views of a 
        bill.
            (3) This practice began in the early 1800s, and such 
        statements have been issued by Presidents including James 
        Monroe, Andrew Jackson, John Tyler, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 
        Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, 
        Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George 
        H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush.
            (4) Much more recently, some courts have begun using 
        presidential signing statements as a source of authority in the 
        interpretation of Acts of Congress.
            (5) This judicial use of presidential signing statements is 
        inappropriate, because it in effect gives these statements the 
        force of law. As the Supreme Court itself has explained, 
        Article I, section 7, of the Constitution provides a ``single, 
        finely wrought and exhaustively considered, procedure'' for the 
        making of Federal law. I.N.S. v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 951 
        (1983). Presidential signing statements are not passed by both 
        Houses of Congress pursuant to Article I, section 7, so they 
        are not the supreme law of the land. It is inappropriate, 
        therefore, for courts to rely on presidential signing 
        statements as a source of authority in the interpretation of 
        Acts of Congress.
            (6) The Supreme Court's reliance on presidential signing 
        statements has been sporadic and unpredictable. In some cases, 
        such as Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U.S. 714, 719 n.1 (1986), 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, 126 S.Ct. 2749 
        (2006), it has conspicuously declined to do so. This 
        inconsistency has the unfortunate effect of rendering the 
        interpretation of Federal law unpredictable.
            (7) As the Hamdan case demonstrates, the Justices of the 
        Supreme Court appear to disagree with one another on the 
        propriety of reliance on presidential signing statements in the 
        interpretation of Federal law. The Supreme Court, with its nine 
        competing perspectives and its jurisdictional restriction to 
        cases and controversies, may remain unable to resolve this 
        difference of opinion and establish a clear rule abjuring such 
        reliance.
            (8) As recently explained in the Harvard Law Review, 
        Congress has power to resolve judicial disputes such as this by 
        enacting Federal rules of statutory interpretation. Nicholas 
        Quinn Rosenkranz, Federal Rules of Statutory Interpretation, 
        115 Harv. L. Rev. 2085 (2002). This power flows from Article I, 
        section 8, cl. 18, 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''. Federal rules of statutory 
        interpretation are necessary and proper to bring into execution 
        the legislative power.
            (9) Congress can and should exercise this power over the 
        interpretation of Federal statutes in a systematic and 
        comprehensive manner.
            (10) Congress hereby exercises this power to forbid 
        judicial reliance on presidential signing statements as a 
        source of authority in the interpretation of Acts of Congress.

SEC. 3. DEFINITION.

    As used in this Act, the term ``presidential signing statement'' 
means a statement issued by the President about a bill, in conjunction 
with signing that bill into law pursuant to Article I, section 7, of 
the Constitution.

SEC. 4. JUDICIAL USE OF PRESIDENTIAL SIGNING STATEMENTS.

    In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, no State or 
Federal court shall rely on or defer to a presidential signing 
statement as a source of authority.

SEC. 5. CONGRESSIONAL STANDING TO OBTAIN DECLARATORY JUDGMENT.

    Any court of the United States, upon the filing of an appropriate 
pleading by the United States Senate, through the Office of Senate 
Legal Counsel, and/or the United States House of Representatives, 
through the Office of General Counsel for the United States House of 
Representatives, may declare the legality of any presidential signing 
statement, whether or not further relief is or could be sought. Any 
such declaration shall have the force and effect of a final judgment or 
decree and shall be reviewable as such.

SEC. 6. CONGRESSIONAL RIGHT TO INTERVENE OR SUBMIT CLARIFYING 
              RESOLUTION.

    Chapter 9D of title 2, United States Code, is amended by adding at 
the end the following:
``Sec. 288o
    ``(a) Notice to Congress.--In any action, suit, or proceeding in 
the Supreme Court of the United States, wherein the construction or 
constitutionality of any Act of Congress in which a presidential 
signing statement was issued, the Supreme Court shall certify such fact 
to the Office of Senate Legal Counsel and to the Office of General 
Counsel for the United States House of Representatives.
    ``(b) Congressional Right To Intervene.--In any suit referenced in 
subsection (a), the Supreme Court shall permit the United States 
Senate, through the Office of Senate Legal Counsel, and/or the United 
States House of Representatives, through the Office of General Counsel 
for the United States House of Representatives, to intervene for 
presentation of evidence, if evidence is otherwise admissible in the 
case, and for argument on the question of the Act's construction and/or 
constitutionality. The United States Senate and House of 
Representatives shall, subject to the applicable provisions of law, 
have all the rights of a party and be subject to all liabilities of a 
party as to court costs to the extent necessary for a proper 
presentation of the facts and law relating to the question of 
constitutionality. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to confer 
standing on any party seeking to bring, or jurisdiction on any court 
with respect to, any civil or criminal action, including suit for court 
costs, against Congress, either House of Congress, a Member of 
Congress, a committee or subcommittee of a House of Congress, any 
office or agency of Congress, or any officer or employee of a House of 
Congress or any office or agency of Congress.
    ``(c) Congressional Right To Submit Clarifying Resolution.--In any 
suit referenced in subsection (a), the full Congress may pass a 
concurrent resolution declaring its view of the proper interpretation 
of the Act of Congress at issue, clarifying Congress's intent, and/or 
clarifying Congress's findings of fact. If Congress does pass such a 
concurrent resolution, the Supreme Court shall permit the United States 
Congress, through the Office of Senate Legal Counsel, to submit that 
resolution into the record of the case as a matter of right.''.

SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION FOR SENATE LEGAL COUNSEL.

    (a) Section 288b(c) of title 2, United States Code, is amended by 
inserting ``or section 2403 of title 28 of the United States Code'' 
after ``under section 288e of this title'';
    (b) Section 288j(a)(1) of title 2, United States Code, is amended 
by inserting ``or section 2403 of title 28 of the United States Code'' 
after ``pursuant to section 288b of this title''; and
    (c) Section 288j(a)(2) of title 2, United States Code, is amended 
by inserting ``or section 2403 of title 28 of the United States Code'' 
after ``pursuant to section 288b(a) of this title''.
                                 <all>