[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 7, Chapters 22 - 25]
[Chapter 24. Bills, Resolutions, and Memorials]
[C. Veto Powers]
[Â§ 22. Consideration and Passage of Vetoed Bills; Voting]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 4949-4957]
 
                               CHAPTER 24
 
              Bills, Resolutions, Petitions, and Memorials
 
                             C. VETO POWERS
 
Sec. 22. Consideration and Passage of Vetoed Bills; Voting

    Under the Constitution, a vetoed bill becomes law when it is 
reconsidered and passed by the requisite two-thirds vote in each 
House.(3) The Supreme Court has held that an affirmative 
vote of two-thirds of the Members voting, a quorum being present, in 
each House, is sufficient to override the President's 
veto.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 7, clause 2.
 4. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v Kansas, 248 U.S. 276 (1919), citing, at pp. 
        283, 284; see also 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 3537, 3538 and 
        7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 1111 and United States v Ballin, 114 
        U.S. 1 (1892).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4950]]

    The vote on the question of passage, the objections of the 
President to the contrary notwithstanding, must be by the yeas and nays 
under the express command of the Constitution.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. ``. . . But in all such Cases [reconsideration of a veto] the Votes 
        of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the 
        Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be 
        entered on the Journal of each House respectively.'' U.S. 
        Const. art. I, Sec. 7, clause 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consideration of a vetoed bill is privileged,(6) and 
when a vetoed bill is postponed to a day certain it comes up then as 
unfinished business.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. U.S. Const., House Rules and Manual Sec. 108 (1981); see also 
        Sec. 22.4, infra.
 7. See Sec. Sec. 22.1, 22.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A vetoed bill is considered under the hour rule (8) and 
the previous question may be moved at any time.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See Sec. Sec. 22.7, 22.8, infra.
 9. See Sec. 22.9, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The motion to reconsider is not in order on the question of over-
riding a veto.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5644; and 8 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. 2778.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Veto Message as Unfinished Business

Sec. 22.1 A veto message is the unfinished business before the House 
    where the consideration of the message has been postponed from the 
    previous day by motion.

    On Apr. 30, 1959,(11) the Speaker (12) 
announced that the unfinished business was the further consideration of 
the veto of the President of the bill (S. 144), to modify 
Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1939 and Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 
1953. The question put was:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 105 Cong. Rec. 7200, 86th Cong. 1st Sess. See also 111 Cong. Rec. 
        26242, 89th Cong. lst Sess., Oct 7, 1965.
12. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Will the House, on reconsideration, pass the bill, the 
    objections of the President to the contrary notwithstanding?

Sec. 22.2 When a veto message postponed to a day certain is announced 
    as the unfinished business, no motion is required from the floor 
    for the consideration of such veto, and the question ``Will the 
    House, on reconsideration, pass the bill, the objections of the 
    President to the contrary notwithstanding'' is pending.

[[Page 4951]]

    On Apr. 14, 1948,(13) the Speaker (14) 
announced that the unfinished business of the House was the further 
consideration of the veto message of the President on the bill (H.R. 
5052) to exclude certain vendors of newspapers or magazines from 
provisions of the Social Security Act and the Internal Revenue Code. 
The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 94 Cong. Rec. 4427, 4428, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
14. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The question is, Will the House, on 
    reconsideration, pass the bill, the objections of the President to 
    the contrary notwithstanding? . . .
        The gentleman from California [Mr. Gearhart] is recognized.
        Mr. [Herman P.] Eberharter [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, will 
    the gentleman yield?
        Mr. [Bertrand W.] Gearhart: I yield to the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania.
        Mr. Eberharter: Has the gentleman made a motion to call up the 
    bill?
        Mr. Gearhart: The Parliamentarian advises me that is not 
    necessary. The Speaker has already stated the issue.
        Mr. Eberharter: I just wanted the record to be certain. I did 
    not hear the gentleman make a motion to call up the bill. . . .
        The Speaker: The veto message was originally read on April 6, 
    and the request of the gentleman from California was that it be 
    reread for the information of the House. Previous to that request 
    the Chair had stated that the question before the House was, Will 
    the House, on reconsideration, pass the bill, the objections of the 
    President to the contrary notwithstanding?
        The gentleman will proceed.

Sec. 22.3 Where the House adjourns prior to disposition of a veto 
    message from the President, the bill comes up as unfinished 
    business on the next legislative day.

    On Sept. 14, 1965,(15) the Speaker (16) 
announced:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 111 Cong. Rec. 23628, 89th Cong. lst Sess.
16. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The unfinished business is the further consideration of the 
    veto message from the President on the bill H.R. 3329 
    [incorporating the Youth Councils on Civil Affairs]. Without 
    objection the message and the bill will be referred to the 
    Committee on the District of Columbia and ordered to be printed.
        There was no objection.

    The preceding day, the President's veto message was laid before the 
House shortly before adjournment. Objection was made to referral of the 
message and bill to committee.(17) Thus, it was brought up 
the next day as unfinished business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 111 Cong. Rec. 23623, 89th Cong. lst Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consideration on Calendar Wednesday

Sec. 22.4 The consideration of a veto message was held to be

[[Page 4952]]

    in order on Calendar Wednesday.

    On May 11, 1932,(18) it being Calendar Wednesday, the 
Speaker (19) laid before the House the veto message of the 
President of the bill (H.R. 6662) to amend the Tariff Act of 1930:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 75 Cong. Rec. 10035, 72d Cong. lst Sess.
19. John N. Garner (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William H.] Stafford [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, this 
    being Calendar Wednesday, ought not further business be dispensed 
    with before we consider any other business?
        The Speaker: Not necessarily.
        Mr. Stafford: This is Holy Wednesday.
        Mr. [Charles R.] Crisp [of Georgia]: Is there any other 
    business under Calendar Wednesday?
        Mr. Stafford: No.

        Mr. Crisp: Mr. Speaker, to save any question, I move that 
    further business under Calendar Wednesday be dispensed with.
        The motion was agreed to.
        The Speaker: Let the Chair say, however, in connection with 
    this Calendar Wednesday rule, that it does not suspend the 
    Constitution of the United States, which provides that a veto 
    message of the President shall have immediate consideration. The 
    Clerk will read the message.

Effect of Committee Report

Sec. 22.5 After referral to the committee in which it originated, a 
    vetoed bill may be reported to the House with the recommendation 
    that it pass over the veto of the President.

    On May 18, 1949,(20) Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, 
submitted a privileged report from the Committee on the Judiciary on 
the bill (H.R. 1036) for the relief of R. C. Owen, R. C. Owen, Jr., and 
Roy Owen. The bill had been vetoed by the President and referred to the 
Committee on the Judiciary after delivery of the President's veto 
message in the House. The Committee on the Judiciary then reported the 
bill with the recommendation that it pass over the President's veto. 
The bill did so pass, two-thirds of the House voting in favor 
thereof.(21)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 95 Cong. Rec. 6426-30, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
21. For an instance where vetoed bill favorably reported from a 
        committee failed of passage, see 86 Cong. Rec. 12615-22, 76th 
        Cong. 3d Sess., Sept. 25, 1940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Likewise, on Aug. 5, 1940,(1) Mr. Hatton W. Sumners, of 
Texas, submitted the report from the Committee on the Judiciary on the 
bill (H.R. 7737) providing for intervention by states in certain cases 
involving the validity of the exercise of federal power.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 86 Cong. Rec. 9878-84, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The bill had been vetoed by the President and on return to the

[[Page 4953]]

House referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. The committee in turn 
reported the bill with the recommendation that it pass the objections 
of the President to the contrary notwithstanding.
    The House voted to override the President's veto, with 253 yeas and 
46 nays.

Committee Report as Privileged

Sec. 22.6 Parliamentarian's Note: Reports from committees to which 
    vetoed bills are referred, recommending passage of such bills over 
    a veto, are privileged.

    On Aug. 17, 1951,(2) Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, 
submitted a privileged report from the Committee on Veterans' Affairs 
on the bill (H.R. 3193), to establish a pension rate, with the 
recommendation that such bill pass over the President's veto. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 97 Cong. Rec. 10197, 10202, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, I submit a privileged report from the 
    Committee on Veterans' Affairs on the bill (H.R. 3193) to establish 
    a rate of pension for aid and attendance under part III of 
    Veterans' Regulation No. 1 (a), as amended.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Your Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to whom was referred 
        the bill, H.R. 3193, entitled ``A bill to establish a rate of 
        pension for aid and attendance under part III of Veterans' 
        Regulation No. 1 (a), as amended,'' together with the 
        objections of the President thereto, having reconsidered said 
        bill and the objections of the President thereto, reports the 
        same back to the House with the unanimous recommendation that 
        said bill do pass, the objections of the President to the 
        contrary notwithstanding. . . .

        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, I ask for recognition.
        The Speaker: (3) The gentleman from Mississippi is 
    recognized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my 
    remarks at this point and include letters which I have received . . 
    . supporting this measure and urging the Congress to override the 
    veto. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The Speaker: The question is, Will the House, on 
    reconsideration, pass the bill, the objections of the President to 
    the contrary notwithstanding?
        Under the Constitution, this vote must be determined by the 
    yeas and nays.
        Those in favor of passing the bill, the objections of the 
    President to the contrary notwithstanding, will, when their names 
    are called, vote 'aye,' those opposed ``no.''
        The Clerk will call the roll.
        The question was taken; and there were yeas 318, nays 45, not 
    voting 69. . . .
        So, two-thirds having voted in favor thereof, the bill was 
    passed, the objec

[[Page 4954]]

    tions of the President to the contrary notwithstanding.

Debate

Sec. 22.7 Debate on the question of passing a bill over the President's 
    veto is under the hour rule and the Member in charge may yield to 
    others for debate in his hour.

    On May 17, 1951,(4) the Speaker (5) called up 
as unfinished business for further consideration a veto message from 
the President on a bill (H.R. 3096) relating to the acquisition and 
disposition of land by the armed forces. Mr. Carl Vinson, of Georgia, 
was recognized by the Chair. Mr. Vinson raised a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 97 Cong. Rec. 5435, 82d Cong. 1st Sess. See also 116 Cong. Rec.  
        750, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 22, 1970.
 5. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, do I understand correctly that under the rules of 
    the House I am entitled to 1 hour, during which time I can yield to 
    other Members without, however, yielding the floor?
        The Speaker: The gentleman is correct.

Sec. 22.8 A Member recognized on the question of passage of a bill over 
    the President's veto controls one hour of debate, and he may yield 
    a portion of that time to another Member who may in turn control 
    the allocation of that time to other Members.

    On Apr. 10, 1973,(6) the House considered the question 
of overriding the President's veto on the bill (H.R. 3298), to restore 
certain water and sewer grant programs. Mr. William R. Poage, of Texas, 
was recognized for one hour. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 119 Cong. Rec. 11679-91, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (7) The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
    Poage) is recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Poage: Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
    gentleman from Oklahoma, the Speaker of the House of 
    Representatives.
        Mr. Albert: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the 
    distinguished chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, the 
    gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poage), has yielded to me. I appreciate 
    the years that I served under his leadership on that committee.
        In a few minutes, as every Member of this House knows, we will 
    cast one of the critical votes of this session of Congress--
    critical because of the importance of the subject matter with which 
    we are dealing, and critical because of the challenge which we 
    confront as a law-making body of the Nation. . . .
        Mr. Poage: Mr. Speaker, it is my desire to yield half of this 
    time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Teague). I understand 
    that I can only

[[Page 4955]]

    yield to him one time. Is it in order for me at this time to yield 
    him 30 minutes and let him apportion it?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (8) The gentleman has 
    control of the time. He can yield his time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. John J. McFall (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Poage: I yield to the gentleman from California 30 minutes.
        Mr. [Charles M.] Teague of California: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Teague of California: Does that mean that I must use all of 
    my 30 minutes together?
        The Speaker: The gentleman may use his time as he sees fit, for 
    purposes of debate only.
        Mr. Teague of California: I thank the Speaker.
        I yield myself 3 minutes.
        Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the President's veto of H.R. 
    3298.
        It is not easy for me, and I know it is not easy for a great 
    many of Members of the House, to vote to sustain the veto on this 
    bill. I say that because the program that has been affected by the 
    President's action is not, in my opinion, a bad program--it is in 
    fact the best of the several agricultural programs for which the 
    President has impounded funds. . . .
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman from California desire to yield 
    further at this time.
        Mr. Teague of California: Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
    gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Harsha].
        Mr. [William H.] Harsha: Mr. Speaker, I believe we should make 
    an attempt in this situation to separate rhetoric from the facts 
    and I want to allude now to some of the facts. . . .
        Mr. Poage: Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
    majority leader, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. O'Neill).
        Mr. [Thomas P.] O'Neill [Jr.]: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking today 
    as a window box farmer, as I was referred to by a gentleman from 
    the minority side the other day, but I want to remind my colleagues 
    that this program, very interestingly, passed the House by 297 
    votes to 54 votes. And it passed the House because the rural water 
    program is crucial for pollution control and health in rural 
    America. . . .
        Mr. Teague of California: Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
    gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Sebelius).
        Mr. [Keith G.] Sebelius: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this 
    opportunity to discuss the Presidential veto of H.R. 3298, 
    legislation to restore the rural water and waste disposal grant 
    program.

        I share the conviction that we must restore commonsense to our 
    Federal spending and hold Federal outlays to the ceiling level of 
    $250 billion. However, how we ``spend'' this limited budget is 
    debatable. It is a matter of priorities. . . .
        Mr. Poage: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself my remaining time.
        Mr. Speaker, there are two issues involved in our consideration 
    of the President's veto.
        The first is the issue of the constitutional division of powers 
    under our tripartite form of Government. Can any President 
    unappropriate funds--the appropriation of which he has previously 
    approved? . . .

[[Page 4956]]

        Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.

     Two-thirds not having voted in favor of the override, the veto of 
the President was sustained and the bill was rejected.

Effect of Moving the Previous Question

Sec. 22.9 The demand for the previous question precludes further debate 
    on the question of passing a bill over a Presidential veto.

    On June 16, 1948,(9) the House had under consideration 
the veto message of the President on a bill (H.R. 6355) making 
supplemental appropriations for the Federal Security Agency. Mr. Frank 
B. Keefe, of Wisconsin, was recognized to control the debate for one 
hour. After brief remarks, he immediately moved the previous question. 
Mr. John J. Rooney, of New York, then raised a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 94 Cong. Rec. 8473, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, under the rules is not the majority granted the 
    privilege of discussing this message?
        The Speaker: (10) If the gentleman from Wisconsin 
    withdraws his moving of the previous question it would be in order. 
    Otherwise it is not in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Voting by Yeas and Nays

Sec. 22.10 Under the Constitution, the vote on passage of a bill over 
    the President's veto must be by the yeas and nays.

    On May 17, 1951,(11) the House had under consideration 
the question of overriding the President's veto on a bill (H.R. 3096), 
relating to the acquisition and disposition of land by the armed 
forces. Mr. Carl Vinson, of Georgia, moved the previous question. The 
Chair (12) declared that under the Constitution, the 
question would have to be determined by the yeas and 
nays.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 97 Cong. Rec. 5444, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
12. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
13. U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 7. See also 97 Cong. Rec. 13745, 82d Cong. 
        1st Sess., Oct. 20, 1951.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vote Recapitulations and Changes

Sec. 22.11 Where a yea and nay vote has been announced and a 
    recapitulation is ordered on the question of overriding a 
    Presidential veto, a Member may correct his vote only and may not 
    change it; and corrections in a vote on recapitulation are made 
    after the yeas have

[[Page 4957]]

    been read by the Clerk and then after the nays are read.

    On June 17, 1947,(14) the House considered the question 
of overriding the President's veto on a bill (H.R. 1), to reduce 
individual income tax payments. After debate a roll call vote was taken 
pursuant to the constitutional requirement. Mr. Charles A. Halleck, of 
Indiana, sought a recapitulation of the vote, and the Chair ordered the 
recapitulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 93 Cong. Rec. 7143, 7144, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Adolph J. Sabath, of Illinois, raised a parliamentary inquiry:

        Mr. Speaker, a Member having voted one way or the other cannot 
    change his vote on the capitulation?
        The Speaker: (15) A Member may correct his vote, but 
    cannot change it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk will call the names of those voting ``yea.''
        The Clerk called the names of those voting ``yea.''
        The Speaker: Are there any corrections to be made where any 
    Member was listening and heard his name called as voting ``yea'' 
    who did not vote ``yea?'' . . . The Chair hears none.
        The Clerk will call the names of those voting ``nay.''
        The Clerk called the names of those voting ``nay.''
        The Speaker: Is there any Member voting ``nay'' who is 
    incorrectly recorded? . . . The Chair hears none.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Since the vote on overriding a veto is now 
taken by the electronic voting device, a recapitulation is not in 
order. The Speaker could, of course, order the vote taken by the call 
of the roll if circumstances warranted.

Pairing of Votes

Sec. 22.12 Pairs on the question of passage of a bill over a 
    Presidential veto are recorded in the Congressional Record and are 
    arranged in a two to one ratio.

    On Aug. 5, 1940,(16) after a roll call vote which 
sustained the veto of the President of a bill (H.R. 3233) to repeal 
certain acts of Congress, the Clerk announced the pairing of certain 
Members on the vote. The Congressional Record disclosed the pairs, as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 86 Cong. Rec. 9889, 9890, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. McDowell and Mr. Ball (to override with Mr. Schwert (to 
    sustain).
        Mr. Wolfenden of Pennsylvania and Mr. Osmers (to override) with 
    Mr. Cullen (to sustain).
        Mr. Culkin and Mr. Jennings (to override) with Mr. Hook (to 
    sustain).
        Mr. Kilburn and Mr. Reece of Tennessee (to override) with Mr. 
    Buckley of New York (to sustain).

[[Page 4958]]