Original introduction
Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the RECORD a copy of a letter signed jointly by myself and the Democratic Leader, Mr. Gephardt. It is addressed to President Clinton. In it, we express our views on the limits of the ‘‘pocket-veto’’ power. I also submit a copy of the letter referenced therein, which was sent to President Bush on November 21, 1989, by Speaker Foley and Republican Leader Michel.
November 13 introduction
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. PEASE). The objections of the President will be spread at large upon the Journal, and the veto message and the bill will be printed as a House document.
On September 19, 2000, the Speaker inserted in the Extensions of Remarks portion of the RECORD a copy of a letter dated September 7, 2000, signed jointly by him and the Democratic leader and addressed to the President of the United States, expressing their views on the limits of the "pocket veto" power and including a similar letter from Speaker Foley and Republican leader Michel sent to President Bush on November 21, 1989. Without objection, that correspondence is reinserted at this point in the RECORD, since no response has been received to the September 7, 2000, letter and the same assertion by the President of "pocket-veto" power during an intrasession adjournment of Congress to a day certain is contained in the veto message just read to the House.
Text of the letter
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, DC, September 7, 2000.
Hon. WILLIAM J. CLINTON,
The President, The White House, Washington, DC.
DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: This is in response to your actions on H.R. 4810, the Marriage Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2000, and H.R. 8, the Death Tax Elimination Act of 2000. On August 5, 2000, you returned H.R. 4810 to the House of Representatives without your approval and with a message stating your objections to its enactment. On August 31, 2000, you returned H.R. 8 to the House of Representatives without your approval and with a message stating your objections to its enactment. In addition, however, in both cases you included near the end of your message the following:
Since the adjournment of the Congress has prevented my return of [the respective bill] within the meaning of Article I, section 7, clause 2 of the Constitution, my withholding of approval from the bill precludes its becoming law. The Pocket Veto Case, 279 U.S. 655 (1929). In addition to withholding my signature and thereby invoking my constitutional power to "pocket veto" bills during an adjournment of the Congress, to avoid litigation, I am also sending [the respective bill] to the House of Representatives with my objections, to leave no possible doubt that I have vetoed the measure.
President Bush similarly asserted a pocket-veto authority during an intersession adjournment with respect to H.R. 2712 of the 101st Congress but, by nevertheless returning the enrollment, similarly permitted the Congress to reconsider it in light of his objections, as contemplated by the Constitution. Your allusion to the existence of a pocket-veto power during even an intrasession adjournment continues to be most troubling. We find that assertion to be inconsistent with the return-veto that it accompanies. We also find that assertion to be inconsistent with your previous use of the return-veto under similar circumstances but without similar dictum concerning the pocket-veto. On January 9, 1996, you stated your disapproval of H.R. 4 of the 104th Congress and, on January 10, 1996–the tenth Constitutional day after its presentment–returned the bill to the Clerk of the House. At the time, the House stood adjourned to a date certain 12 days hence. Your message included no dictum concerning the pocket-veto.