B-308603, Presidential Signing Statements Accompanying the Fiscal Year 2006 Appropriations Acts, June 18, 2007

B-308603 Jun 18, 2007 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The President issued signing statements for 11 appropriations acts in fiscal year 2006, identifying constitutional concerns or objections with some provisions appearing in the acts. In total, the President singled out 160 provisions of law, which GAO categorized on the basis of the President's stated concern or objection. GAO examined 19 of these provisions to determine whether the agencies responsible for their execution carried out the provisions as written. Of these 19 provisions, 10 were executed as written, 6 were not, and 3 were not triggered and so there was no agency action to examine. Of the six provisions that were not executed as written, the President's objection to three provisions was based on Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha; his objection to two provisions was based on the theory of the unitary executive; and his objection to one provision was based on the President's law enforcement authority. View Decision B-308603, Presidential Signing Statements Accompanying the Fiscal Year 2006 Appropriations Acts, June 18, 2007 B-308603 June 18, 2007 The Honorable Robert C. Byrd Chairman, Committee on Appropriations United States Senate The Honorable John Conyers, Jr. Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary United States House of Representatives Subject: Presidential Signing Statements Accompanying the Fiscal Year 2006 Appropriations Acts This letter responds to your request that we examine the fiscal year 2006 appropriations acts and the President's accompanying signing statements to identify the provisions in the acts to which the President took exception and to determine how the President executed those provisions. We also examined how the federal courts have treated signing statements in their published opinions. We found that in 11 signing statements the President singled out 160 specific provisions from the fiscal year 2006 appropriations acts. We examined 19 of these provisions to determine whether the agencies responsible for their execution carried out the provisions as written.[1] Of these 19 provisions, 10 provisions were executed as written, 6 were not, and 3 were not triggered and so there was no agency action to examine.[2] With regard to the use of signing statements by the federal courts, we found that they cite or refer to them infrequently and only in rare instances have relied on them as authoritative interpretations of the law. In this review, we did not assess the merits of the President's objections, nor did we examine the constitutionality of the provisions to which the President objected. BACKGROUND There is no established definition of –signing statement.— Signing statements usually take the form of a presidential statement or press release issued in connection with the President's signing of a bill. There is even some disagreement as to the first historical use of a signing statement. Many scholars cite President Andrew Jackson's statement accompanying an appropriations act involving internal improvements as the first signing statement.[3] Other scholars point to a statement made by President James Monroe a month after signing a law regulating the appointment of military officers.[4] Various presidential administrations have used signing statements since the early nineteenth century with a variety of responses by Congress and the courts.[5] Some signing statements praise the newly signed law and those involved in its passage. An example of such a signing statement was President Clinton's statement upon signing the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, 1997: –This bill is good for America, and I am pleased that my Administration could fashion it with the Congress on a bipartisan basis. It moves us further down the road toward our goal of a balanced budget while protecting, not violating, the values we share as Americans—opportunity, responsibility, and community.—[6] The signing statement goes on to discuss specific parts of the act in similar fashion. In other signing statements, presidents have offered their interpretation of or have explained how agencies will execute a new law. Presidents also have raised constitutional concerns or objections to new statutes in signing statements. In some instances, a single signing statement serves some or all of these purposes. In other cases, presidents have issued multiple signing statements with different purposes for a single law.