[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 57-58]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




     VETO MESSAGE ON HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 64, FURTHER CONTINUING 
                    APPROPRIATIONS, FISCAL YEAR 2010

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Baldwin). Pursuant to the order of the 
House of January 12, 2010, the unfinished business is the further 
consideration of the veto message of the President on the joint 
resolution (H.J. Res. 64) making further continuing appropriations for 
fiscal year 2010, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Will the House, on 
reconsideration, pass the joint resolution, the objections of the 
President to the contrary notwithstanding?
  (For veto message, see proceedings of the House of January 12, 2010, 
at page 7.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is 
recognized for 1 hour.


                             General Leave

  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent all Members may have 
5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on H.J. Res. 64.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I am the only speaker for our side of the 
aisle and I plan to be brief. So I will yield the customary 30 minutes 
to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) for the purpose of debate 
only.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
might consume.
  I wanted to rise in support of the position taken by my friend, Mr. 
Obey. He didn't say what that position was exactly; so I am assuming 
that we are going to vote ``no,'' that we are going to support the 
President's veto. And I think, on our side, we fully support this 
issue.
  I find it a bit ironic that here we are having to defend the 
constitutional prerogatives of the Congress on a joint resolution that 
was originally sent to the President to respect his constitutional 
prerogatives.
  Under Article I, section 7 of the Constitution, the President has up 
to 10 days to review legislation before deciding whether to sign it 
into law. However, when a continuing resolution is to keep the 
government functioning if the appropriations bill is set to expire, the 
continuing resolution is sent to the President to give him the 
opportunity to review the appropriations bill. As a matter of courtesy 
to the President, Congress, on a bipartisan basis, traditionally 
submits a short-term ``signing'' CR to preserve the President's 
ability.
  That is exactly what the situation here is today. Basically, it is a 
moot question other than the constitutional requirements. And so we are 
here to say to my friend Mr. Obey and to you, Madam Speaker, that 
assuming that Mr. Obey is going to recommend a ``no'' vote, we are 
going to also vote ``no.''
  I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I think the gentleman from Florida has 
summed up the situation pretty well.
  In December, the House and Senate passed a 5-day continuing 
resolution in order to give the President time to sign the Defense 
appropriations bill. The President received the CR and the Defense 
appropriations bill on the same day, December 19. He signed the Defense 
bill, thereby avoiding the need for the stopgap funding in the CR.
  Since the President signed the Defense appropriations measure 
quickly, I agree that the CR was not needed to keep the government 
open.
  The President sent the CR back to the House, as the gentleman 
indicated, with his veto. But in that veto message, he suggested in 
some ways that he had, in fact, pocket vetoed the legislation.
  But the fact is clear that the Congress was here to receive a 
message, and we do not consider it a pocket veto. Therefore, we feel 
that the appropriate action to be taken is to sustain the veto and take 
this action to demonstrate that, in our judgment, a pocket veto is not 
appropriate, that the President exercised a regular veto and it should 
be treated as such.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I fully support my friends on 
the other side of the aisle taking action to protect the constitutional 
prerogatives of the legislative branch in this matter.
  As the gentleman from Florida stated, it is ironic that the executive 
branch has chosen to use an action taken by the Congress as a courtesy 
to them against this very body. I think this should give all of us 
pause when we are faced with similar situations in the future.
  As the gentleman from Florida has stated, the Constitution allows the 
President to take some time to review the legislation sent to him. 
However, when we are dealing with appropriations bills and operating 
under a continuing resolution to keep the government running, sometimes 
timelines don't match up neatly. As a matter of courtesy to the 
President, Congress on a bipartisan basis traditionally transmits a 
short term ``signing'' CR to preserve the President's ability to review 
final appropriations bills without triggering a government shutdown.
  That is exactly what occurred in this situation. The Congress did not 
send the President the final defense appropriations bill until December 
19, the day the existing CR was to expire, leaving the President no 
time to review the defense bill unless he wanted to shut the Department 
of Defense down. So, the Congress unanimously passed and transmitted a 
short term CR solely as a matter of courtesy. The President could have 
easily followed his predecessors' practice and signed both bills. The 
substantive effect would have been the same as it is today.
  But that is not what the President chose to do. So we are here today, 
as the Congress, to deal with the first veto issued by President Obama.
  Is it a veto based over substantive policy disagreements like 
President Bush's veto of stem cell legislation, or President Clinton's 
veto of legislation lifting the arms embargo for Bosnia and 
Herzegovina?
  No, it is not. It is a veto that simply uses a now moot piece of 
legislation to re-ignite a battle between the legislative and executive 
branches dating back to the Nixon administration, a battle that the 
courts have generally sided in favor of the legislative branch.
  I hope that in the future the President will exercise his veto power 
on substantive issues important to the American people such as vetoing 
bills that continue us on a path of reckless government spending.
  Mr. OBEY. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  The question is, Will the House, on reconsideration, pass the joint 
resolution, the objections of the President to the contrary 
notwithstanding?
  In accord with the Constitution, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings will be 
postponed.

[[Page 58]]



                          ____________________