I 
110TH CONGRESS 
1ST SESSION H. R. 3045 
To regulate the judicial use of presidential signing statements in the 
interpretation of Acts of Congress. 
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
JULY 16, 2007 
Ms. SHEA-PORTER introduced the following bill; which was 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 Representa-
tives 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 2007’’. 
SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 
Congress finds the following: 
(1) While the executive branch has a role in en-
acting legislation, it is clear that this is a limited 
role. Article I, section 7 of the Constitution provides 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
00:01 Jul 18, 2007
Jkt 059200
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H3045.IH
H3045
ccoleman on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
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 Representa-
tives 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 in-
cluding James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, John 
Tyler, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisen-
hower, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, Rich-
ard 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 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
00:01 Jul 18, 2007
Jkt 059200
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H3045.IH
H3045
ccoleman on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
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 Ar-
ticle 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 presi-
dential 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 conspicu-
ously 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 Jus-
tices of the Supreme Court appear to disagree with 
one another on the propriety of reliance on presi-
dential signing statements in the interpretation of 
Federal law. The Supreme Court, with its nine com-
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
00:01 Jul 18, 2007
Jkt 059200
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H3045.IH
H3045
ccoleman on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
peting perspectives and its jurisdictional restriction 
to cases and controversies, may remain unable to re-
solve this difference of opinion and establish a clear 
rule abjuring such reliance. 
(8) Congress has the power to resolve judicial 
disputes such as this by enacting rules of statutory 
interpretation. This power flows from Article I, sec-
tion 8, clause 18, which gives Congress the power 
‘‘To make all laws which shall be necessary and 
proper for carrying into execution the foregoing pow-
ers, 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 bring into 
execution the legislative power. 
(9) Congress can and should exercise this power 
over the interpretation of Federal statutes in a sys-
tematic and comprehensive manner. 
(10) Congress hereby exercises this power to 
forbid judicial reliance on presidential signing state-
ments 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 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
00:01 Jul 18, 2007
Jkt 059200
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H3045.IH
H3045
ccoleman on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
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 STATE-
MENTS. 
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, 
no Federal or State court shall rely on or defer to a presi-
dential signing statement as a source of authority. 
SEC. 5. CONGRESSIONAL RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN 
COURT PROCEEDINGS OR SUBMIT CLARI-
FYING RESOLUTION. 
(a) CONGRESSIONAL RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE
AS 
AMICUS CURIAE.—In any action, suit, or proceeding in 
any Federal or State court (including the Supreme Court 
of the United States), regarding the construction or con-
stitutionality, or both, of any Act of Congress in which 
a presidential signing statement was issued, the Federal 
or State Court shall permit the United States Senate, 
through the Office of Senate Legal Counsel, as authorized 
in section 701 of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 
(2 U.S.C. 288), or the United States House of Represent-
atives, through the Office of General Counsel for the 
United States House of Representatives, or both, to par-
ticipate as an amicus curiae, and to present an oral argu-
ment on the question of the Act’s construction or constitu-
tionality, or both. Nothing in this section shall be con-
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
00:01 Jul 18, 2007
Jkt 059200
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H3045.IH
H3045
ccoleman on PROD1PC69 with BILLS