Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

order even though, if carried, it would prevent a vote on reconsideration for that session.34 In another instance, the House adjourned for the day after the reading of a veto message but before voting on reconsideration.35

Motion to lay on the table

A bill returned with the President's objections may be laid on the table.36 In the House, the motion to lay on the table is generally used for final, adverse disposition of a matter without debate. A vetoed bill, however, even when laid on the table, is highly privileged and thus a motion to take it from the table is in order at any time. 37

Motion for the previous question

The previous question, when ordered, cuts off debate and brings the House to a vote on the pending question. The motion for the previous question is the only motion used for closing debate in the House.38 It is not in order in the Committee of the Whole.39 There is no comparable motion in the Senate.40

The Member controlling debate is entitled to move the previous question. If, after debate, the Member controlling the time does not move the previous question, another Member may.41

The motion must be disposed of before any other business can be considered unless the mover withdraws his motion. If the House votes to order the previous question, it says in effect that it is ready to vote on the substantive question and it proceeds immediately to do so. If the House defeats the motion for the previous question, debate continues under the hour rule but control of the floor passes to opponents. In the case of reconsideration of a vetoed bill, the Speaker would recognize to control the hour the Member leading the fight to sustain the President's veto. Usually if the previous question is voted down, amendments may be offered to the pending measure. However, since the pending question was not subject to amendment, rejection of the motion for the previous question does not open the vetoed bill to amendment.42

Motions to postpone

There are two distinct motions to postpone: one, to postpone to a day certain and the other, to postpone indefinitely. The constitu

34 4 Hinds' Precedents § 3523 (1907) and 7 Cannon's Precedents § 1109 (1907). The veto message becomes the unfinished business on the next legislative day. If the veto message is not read before the House adjourns sine die, because of the failure of a quorum, the veto message may be read and the disapproved bill reconsidered in the next session of the same Congress. 35 7 Cannon's Precedents § 1109 (1936).

36 4 Hinds' Precedents § 3549 (1907) and 7 Cannon's Precedents §§ 1100, 1105 (1936).

37 4 Hinds' Precedents § 3550 (1907) and 5 Hinds' Precedents § 5439 (1907). See also, House Rules and Manual § 785 (1983) for general proposition that privileged matters laid on the table may be taken up at any time.

38 Clause 1, Rule XVII Rules of the House of Representatives, 99th Congress; House Rules and Manual § 805 (1983); 5 Hind's Precedents § 5456 (1907); 8 Cannon's Precedents § 2662 (1936). 39 4 Hinds' Precedents § 4716 (1907).

40 8 Cannon's Precedents §§ 2663-2671 (1936). These sections present the early history of Senate rules to limit debate and concerning the motion for the previous question.

41 5 Hinds' Precedents § 5475 (1907). See also, House Rules and Manual § 807 (1983).

42 Deschler's Procedure § 10.7 (1982). For general discussion of the motion for the previous question and the opportunity to amend the pending matter, see the debate on the rule for Gramm-Latta 127 Cong. Rec. H3369, (daily ed. June 25, 1981).

tional mandate "to proceed to reconsider" a vetoed bill does not preclude a motion to postpone to a day certain.43

On December 17, 1985, the House, by unanimous consent, postponed further consideration of the veto message on H.R. 1562 until August 6, 1986:

The SPEAKER. The objections of the President will be spread at large upon the Journal, and the message and bill will be printed as a House document.

Mr. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that further consideration of the veto message of the President on the bill, H.R. 1562 be postponed until August 6, 1986.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Georgia? Mr. FRENZEL. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I do so in order that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. JENKINS) can explain the nature of this request. I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, the President in his message, the veto message had delineated certain action that the administration intends to take in the coming months. This will give the House, as well as the administration, ample opportunity to see if the matter can be addressed without taking up the veto message until August 6.

Mr. FRENZEL. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. CAMPBELL].

Mr. CAMPBELL. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from Georgia has stated, the President has delineated certain action. The fact is that it is a way to deal with the problems without the confrontation of the veto, and we feel that the White House is trying to deal in good faith and we would like to try to give them that opportunity.

Mr. FRENZEL. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, it is obvious that the White House and those people representing textile districts are trying to work out an accommodation which will avoid unnecessary confrontation. Those of us who support the President's veto believe that this is probably in the best interest of the country and all of the institutions.

Mr. Speaker, I therefore withdraw my reservation of objection.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Georgia? There was no objection.

It is not in order, however, to move to postpone indefinitely the consideration of a vetoed bill.44

Further consideration of a vetoed message becomes the unfinished business of the House on the day to which it has been postponed.45 Consideration is in order on the day to which it is postponed immediately after the Journal is approved. At that time, the veto may be debated and voted on at once; no motion is required from the floor and the question on passage, on reconsideration, is pending.46 Of course, the ordinary motions to adjourn, to lay on the table, to postpone further consideration to a day certain and to refer are also in order at that time. On October 20, 1983, the Speaker pro tempore, responded to a parliamentary inquiry:

47

Mr. SEIBERLING. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that further consideration of the veto message on the bill, H.R. 1062, be postponed until Tuesday, October 25, 1983.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ohio?

Mr. LUJAN. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.

43 Deschler's Procedure §§ 16.1-16.3, 16.6 (1982). See also, 4 Hind's Precedents 3542-47 (1907) and 7 Connon's Precedents §§ 1101, 1103, 1112-13 (1936).

44 4 Hinds' Precedents 3548 (1907).

45 24 Deschler's Procedure § 15.6 (1982).

46 24 Deschler's Prodecure § 15.4 (1982).

47 129 Cong. Rec. H8472 (daily ed. October 20, 1983).

Mr. LUJAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire, if the unanimous-consent request is granted, what our options would be on Tuesday? Are our options to take up the veto message or just what position will we be in on Tuesday if we do not object to this unanimous-consent request?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. If the unanimous-consent request is agreed to, the matter will appear as unfinished business on the calendar of the House on Tuesday and at that time it may be referred to committee, it can be deferred for futher action or it can be taken up and the vote taken at that time.

Mr. LUJAN. I thank the Speaker for his answer.

Motions to refer

Any member may move to refer a veto message and bill to a committee. A member need not be opposed to the pending question in order to make the motion. 48 A motion to refer takes precedence over the question of reconsideration where the Chair has not yet stated the question to be pending on overriding the veto but the motion to refer may be laid on the table or postponed.49

The committee to which it has been referred may report the bill and recommend its passage on reconsideration. The report is privileged.50 The referral, in this case, is an opportunity to delay the vote on reconsideration.

More often, the referral is the last consideration given to the vetoed bill. When the President vetoes a private bill, his message is usually referred to the committee of jurisdiction, by motion or by unanimous consent,51 and the House does not vote on reconsideration. In the 93d Congress, 2d session, when the House voted to sustain the President's veto of a private bill, the parliamentary consultant to the Speaker "could not recall a time when the House attempted to override the veto of a private bill. Such vetoes are normally referred back to the committee of original jurisdiction but at the behest of a Member and with the concurrence of the Judiciary Committee, a vote was taken on overriding the veto." 52 The veto message and bill are also referred to the committee of original jurisdiction when the House sustains the President's veto.53

It is clear that a committee to which a vetoed bill has been referred may neglect to report the bill.54 While the motion to discharge a committee from consideration of a measure is ordinarily without privilege (unless accompanied by the signatures of 218 members), a motion to discharge a committee from consideration of a veto message presents a question of constitutional privilege and is in order at any time.55 The privileged motion to discharge, however, may be laid on the table.

The committee may report a new bill in place of the vetoed bill. The replacement may be the same as the vetoed bill in all respects save the provisions objected to by the President. If the committee reports a new bill, the report is not privileged. 56

48 House Rules and Manual § 787 (1983). See also, 7 Cannon's Precedents § 1100 (1936) and 24 Deschler's Procedure § 14.3 (1982).

49 24 Deschler's Procedure § 15.8 (1982). See also, same subsection in 1985 supplement. 50 4 Hinds' Precedents § 3531 (1907) and 7 Cannon's Precedents § 1096 (1936).

[blocks in formation]

53 24 Deschler's Procedure § 14.7 (1982). See also, 7 Cannon's Precedents § 1103 (1936).
54 4 Hinds' Precedents § 3550 (1907) and 7 Cannon's Precedents § 1114 (1936).
55 4 Hinds' Precedents § 3532-33 (1907) and 24 Deschler's Procedure § 14.9 (1982).
56 4 Hinds' Precedents § 3531 (1907) and 7 Cannon's Precedents §§ 1103, 1114 (1936).

There is a long tradition of Congress enacting new legislation, in place of vetoed bills, to satisfy the President's objections. President George Washington vetoed a bill in 1797, his second and last veto.57 His message explained that he objected to only one provision in the bill,58 the provision which discharged, immediately upon enactment, two military units of light dragoons. The President said that it would take several weeks for the two companies to receive news of their discharge; it would be unfair, said the President, that the men would not be compensated for their service between the time the bill was enacted and the time they heard of their discharge. The House sustained the President's veto on March 1, 1797 and, on the same day, adopted a new bill identical to the vetoed bill except it did not immediately discharge the two companies. The President had noted the single provision to which he objected and Congress promptly removed it. The history of Presidential vetoes is filled with similar stories.

One might ask, anticipating the discussion of item vetoes, why the President needs an item veto since he can note his objections and have Congress remove the offending provisions in a new bill. What is the difference between Congress enacting a new bill omitting provisions to which the President objected and Congress sustaining an item veto? The legislative effect is the same; the measure, minus the provisions objected to, becomes law. The major difference is the burden on the President to accomplish his ends. If a new bill without the objectionable provisions is reported in place of the vetoed bill, the President wins only if a majority in both Houses approves the new bill. If the President was granted an item veto and exercised that authority, he would win if one-third plus one in either House refuses to override the veto.

Pocket Veto

A bill enacted by Congress becomes a law if it is signed by the President within ten calendar days, Sundays excepted, after it is presented to him.59 The bill becomes a law even if Congress is not in session when the President signs it.60 If the President does not sign a bill but does not return it within ten days for Congress to reconsider, the bill becomes a law "in like manner as if he had signed it." 61

The ten-day clock begins at midnight on the day on which the bill is presented to the President. 62 A bill is generally considered to have been presented to the President upon its delivery to the White House. A bill delivered to the White House while the President is out of the country may, by special agreement, be held for

57 H.R. 219, 4th Congress, 2nd session (1797).

58 February 28, 1797, H. Jour. 726.

59 U.S. Const. art I, §7.

60 4 Hinds' Precedents §3495 (1907) and 24 Deschler's Procedure §12.1 (1982). The Supreme Court, in La Abra Silver Mining Company v. United States, 175 U.S. 423, 451 (1899) ruled valid as laws acts signed by the President when Congress was not in session for a specified time but within ten days of presentation. In Edwards v. United States, 286 U.S. 482 (1932), the Supreme Court decided that a bill signed after Congress adjourned sine die but within ten days of presentation was valid as law.

[blocks in formation]

presentation to the President upon his return.63 The question of whether the President has acted within the ten days allowed him is a legal question.64

There is an exception to the ten-day rule. Congress prevents the return of a vetoed bill when it adjourns sine die at the end of a Congress during the ten days allowed the President to approve or disapprove a bill. If the President simply withholds his approval under those circumstances, since he cannot return the bill, then the bill does not become a law.65 This is called a pocket veto.

When Congress adjourns to a date certain, does it thereby prevent the return of a bill? Congress has generally asserted that it does not prevent the return of bills during intra- or inter-session recesses so long as congressional officers are authorized to receive messages from the President.

In the 93rd Congress, the House adjourned during the ten-day period for the President to sign H.R. 14225, the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1974. The President returned the bill to the Clerk of the House who had been authorized to receive messages. The President asserted that he had pocket vetoed this bill. Upon its return, the House proceeded to reconsider and pass the bill, overriding the veto despite the President's pocket veto assertion.66 One day later the Senate also voted to override the veto. The question of the pocket veto was not finally resolved, however H.R. 14225 was not printed as a public law but a new bill was introduced and the content of H.R. 14225 was embodied in H.R. 17503. Only five days after the Senate override, both houses adopted H.R. 17503. It became public law ten days later.

Litigation has not fully settled the issue of the veto during an adjournment when congressional officers are authorized to receive Presidential messages. The Supreme Court ruled in the Wright case 67 that if the Congress provides for receipt of Presidential messages when it adjourns to a date certain for three days or less, the President is not prevented from returning a bill. The Supreme Court has not decided a case involving longer adjournments (within one session or between sessions of the same Congress) during which an officer or agent of Congress is authorized to receive messages from the President.

These issues, however, have been litigated in federal court and the Wright decision has so far been upheld and extended.68 During a five-day Christmas recess of the 91st Congress, the President withheld his approval of the Family Practice of Medicine Bill 69

63 The White House "held for presentation to the President upon his return to the U.S." a bill delivered to the White House on August 31, 1959. The bill was returned to the House with the President's objections on September 14, 1959. In Eber Brothers Wine and Liquor Corporation v. United States, 337 F.2d 624 (1964), the U.S. Court of Claims decided that a Presidential veto more than ten days after delivery to the White House but within ten days of the President's arrival in the U.S. was timely, given an informal agreement between the President and leaders of the Congress to hold delivered bills for presentation until after the President's return. See 105 Cong. Rec. 19553 (1959).

[blocks in formation]
« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »