Contact: Josh Holly; 202.226.3988
Opening Statement of Congressman Todd Akin
Subcommittee Hearing on Signing Statements and the National Defense Authorization Act
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO), the ranking Republican on the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, released the following opening statement regarding signing statements and the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008:
“Today’s hearing addresses an important subject that merits the attention of this committee. I commend the Chairman for holding this hearing.
“Presidential signing statements involve the constitutional prerogatives of the Legislative Branch and the Executive Branch. The House Armed Services Committee, in particular, carries out a specified duty in Article I of the Constitution: ‘to provide for the common defence’, ‘to raise and support armies’, ‘to provide and maintain a Navy’, and ‘to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.’ Similarly, the President has a responsibility, outlined in Article II, ‘to preserve protect, and defend the constitution’ and ‘to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.’ While we hope that these respective constitutional responsibilities of the Legislative and Executive Branches do not conflict, the reality is that there is frequently disagreement between the two branches. In my view, this is a natural state of affairs that our Founders built into our unique form of government.
“The crucial question, therefore, is not if these conflicts are appropriate, as I believe these tensions are built into our Constitution, but how such disputes are addressed and resolved? In my view, when the Congress and President do disagree about the constitutionality of a specific provision of law, the most important equity to be preserved is transparency and communication. If the President believes his independent duties under the Constitution preclude him from implementing a law in the manner Congress prescribed then I want to know. What I do not want is an Executive that does not communicate with the Congress.
“Therefore, it seems to me that Presidential signing statements, like a Statement of the Administration’s Position (SAP) or so-called ‘Heartburn’ letters, are important tools of communication so that the Legislative Branch knows which provisions of law will require increased oversight over Executive implementation.
“With respect to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, the President highlighted four provisions in his signing statement. I think the prudent course for this Committee is to oversee the implementation of these provisions to ensure they are carried out consistent with our intent. My understanding is that measuring exactly how signing statements actually affect implementation is something that has not been studied closely; I’d like our witnesses to comment on this point.
“Finally, there is the matter of whether courts will give weight to signing statements in a manner similar to legislative history. My question for the witnesses, particularly Professor Rosenkranz, is whether it is inappropriate for courts to consider the President’s constitutional equities when interpreting a statute? Moreover, if courts consult foreign sources of law when interpreting US law—something I am deeply skeptical of—shouldn’t they take into account a President’s statement?”
###