7 4 /£ £ £ > . J 8?// ’3 /9 P O C K E T V E T O B IL L GOVERNMENT / J! C M O oAN j 5 1974 T H ~ < t . U .x iV u H Sv I • _• H E A R IN G K A N S A S S I A BEFO RE T H E SUBCOMMITTEE ON MONOPOLIES AND COMMERCIAL LAW OF TH E COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES NINE TY -TH IRD CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ON H.R. 7386—Pocket Veto Bill SE PT EM BE R 12, 1973 Serial No. 19 P r in te d f o r th e u s e o f th e C o m m it te e o n th e J u d ic ia r y U.S. GO VE RN ME NT PR IN TI NG OFF IC E 22-1550 WA SH INGT ON : 197J COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY P E T E R W. RO DIN O, Jr., New Jersey, Ch air man H AROLD D. DO NO HUE , Massachusetts ED W AR D HUTCH IN SO N, Michigan JA CK B RO OK S, Texas R O B E R T M cC LORY, Illinois R O B E R T W. KASTEN M EIE R, Wisconsin H E N R Y P. SMITH III , New York DO N ED WAR DS , California CH A RLES W. SA NDM AN , Jr., N ew Jersey WILLIAM L. H UN O ATE, Missouri TOM RA IL SBA CK, Illinois JOHN CO N YERS, Jr., Michigan CH A RLES E. W IG GI NS , California JO SH UA E IL BERG, Pennsylvania DAVI D W. DENNIS , Indiana JE RO ME R. WAL DIE, California HAM IL TO N FISH, Jr., N ew York W ALTE R FLOW ER S, Alabama W IL E Y M AYNE, Iowa JAM ES R. MA NN , South Carolina LA W RENCE J. H OGAN, Maryland PA U L 8. SA RBANES, Maryland WILLIAM J. K E A T IN G , Ohio JOHN F. SEIB ERLIN G , Ohio M. CA LD W ELL B U T LE R , Virginia GEO RG E E. DANIE LS ON, California WILLIAM S. COHEN, Maine R O B E R T F. DRIN AN , Massachusetts T R E N T LO TT, Mississippi CH A RLES B. RAN GEL, New York H ARO LD V . FRO EII LIC H , Wisconsin B A R B A RA JO RD AN, Texas CARLO S J. MOO RH EA D, California R A Y TH ORNTO N, Arkansas JO SE PH J. M ARAZI TI , New Jersey ELIZ ABETH H OL TZ M^N , New York W AYNE OWENS', Utah ED W AR D M EZ VI NSK Y, Iowa Jerome M. Zeifman , General Co un se l G arner J. C lin e, Associa te General Cou nse l Joseph F ischer, Co un sel Herbert F uchs, Co un se l Her bert E. Hoffm an, Co un se l William P. Shattuck, Cou ns el H. C hristopher N old e, Co un se l A lan A . P ar ke r, Co tin sel Jame s F. Falco, Co un sel Maurice A . B arboza, Co un se l D onald G. Ben n, Co un se l F ra nken G ,P olk , Cou ns el R oger A . P au le y, Cou ns el T homas E . Moon ey, Co un se l P eter T . Strau b, Cou ns el Michael W. B lommer, Co un se l A lexander B. Coo k, Co un se l Subc omm itte e on M ono polies and Commercial Law P E T E R W. RO DI NO, Jr., N ew Jersey, Ch airm an JA CK BROOKS, Texas EDW AR D H UTCH IN SO N, Michigan W ALTER FL OW ER S, Alabama R O B E R T M cC LORY, Illinois JOHN F. SEIB ER LIN G , Ohio CH A RLES W. SA NDM AN , J r., New Jersey B A R B A R A J ORD AN , Texas DAVI D W. D EN N IS , Indiana ED W AR D M EZ VIN SK Y, Iowa Jerome J [. Zeifm an, Co un se l James F. F alco, Co un sel Jared B . Stam ell, A ss ista nt Cou ns el F ranklin G. P ol k, Assoc iate Co un sel <n> C O N T E N T S Page Hearin g held September 12, 1973___________________________________ I Text of II. R. 7386________________________________________________ 3 Testimony of— Dixon, Robert G., Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Department of Justice, accompanied by Herm an Marcuse, attorney adviser, Office of Legal Counsel, anil Karen Skrivseth, atto rney, Office of Legislative Affairs_________________________ 5 Statem ents of— Dixon, Robert G., Jr., Assistant Attorney General_______________ 25 Hutchinson, Hon. Edw ard, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan__________________________________________ 4 Rodino, Hon. Peter W., Jr., a Representativ e in Congress from the Sta te of New Jersey, chairman, House Committee on the Judic iar y. 1 Correspondence— Rodino, Hon. Peter W., Jr., September 25, 1973__________________ 33 Dixon, Hon. Robert G., Jr., December 4, 1973___________________ 34 (m ) - •< ......... » . - . ’ • uh<f •• • • 1 ' n j - ’ > ■I ■; ■■ . ■ - Q ’ ! <na) POCKET VETO BILL WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1973 H ou se of R e pr e se n t a t iv e s , S ubcom m it tee on M o n o po lie s an d C om mer ci al L aw of t h e C om m it te e on th e J u d ic ia ry , Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10:35 a.m., pursuant to call, in room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Peter W. Rodino, Jr. [chairman] presiding. Present: Representatives Rodino, Flowers, Seiberling, Jordan, Mezvinsky, Hutchinson, McClory, and Dennis. Also present: James F. Falco, counsel; Jared B. Stamell, assistant counsel; and Franklin G. Polk, associate counsel. Chairman R odino. The committee will come to order. I am delighted this morning to have present with us Assistant Attorney General Robert Dixon to discuss the views of the Depart­ ment of Justice on II.R. 7386, the pocket veto bill. I have a prepared statement, but I will insert it in the record. Mr. Dixon, you know th at this matter came before the 92d Congress when this subcommittee had hearings. At tha t time, the views of the public were given to the committee. There were no further develop­ ments. However, this is a subject which continues to perplex us, and for th at reason I introduced H.R. 7386. I appreciate your coming here today. I recognize that in view of the fact tha t this matter has devel­ oped into a litigated stage at this time, there is a need for this executive session. [The prepared statement of Chairman Rodino follows:] Opening S tatement of II on. P eter W. R odino, J r., C hairman, Subcommittee on M onopolies and C ommercial L aw When the Framers of the Constitu tion created our Government, they took great pains to ensure that Congress would have the final say on whether or not a bill becomes a law. In article I, section 7, clause 2, of the Constitu tion the Framers gave the President a veto power over legislation, but qualified th at power by providing th at a two-thirds vote of each House of Congress would override a presidential veto. The issue which we address tod ay is the proper scope of an exception to the -^qualified veto power of the President —the so-called pocket veto power.*A pocket veto is an absolute veto. Its use prevents Congress from reconsidering a bill a nd voting on it in light of the President’s disapproval. Such a veto results when the return of a bill by the President to Congress is prevented by an adjournment^ Since the presidency of Andrew Johnson, the kind of adjournment which perm its the assertion of pocket veto power by the President has been an area of periodic dispute between Congress and the President. The 1970 pocket veto of the Family Practice of Medicine Act by President Nixon during a five day December recess of Congress raised this dispute in his administration. (1) 2 The bill, H.R . 7386, seeks to resolve once and for all the pocket veto dispute by- providing th at such veto power can be exercised only at the end of a session of Congress, when either House adjo urns “ sine die” . Such an adjournment ends a ^legislative session and there is no further opportunity for Congress to reconsider bill vetoed by the President. — This legislation is imp orta nt, bec ause*a pocket veto during a session disrupts V ' T the orderly passage of legislationj Litigation to determine w’hether or not a pocket \K veto during a session of Congress is proper can take years, as i t has in th e Family Practice of Medicine case. In the meantime, the status of a bill is clouded with \u n p e rta in ty j ...... * "It m ay be possible in some cases to pass a bill again. But, the n there is duplica­ tion of time and resources by both Congress and the Executive Branch which A would be better devoted to the other vital tasks facing the c ou ntry j * ^However, the greatest harm from pocket vetoes where their use is not required by the Constitution, is the erosion of the legislative power of Congress which results, as it seems to me to be the case during a session of Congressj It is clear ft .